NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUILLERMO ADAN DE LA TORREMAGDALENO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72025 

Agency No. A200-878-085 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 18, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Guillermo Adan De La Torre-Magdaleno, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th 

Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation

of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 

(9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. 

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part 

and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

De La Torre-Magdaleno fears harm in Mexico as a member of the social 

group of “returnee[s] that [have] lived in the United States for more than ten 

years.” The BIA did not err in finding that De La Torre-Magdaleno failed to 

establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 

social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of 

members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with 

particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting 

Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also DelgadoOrtiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning 

Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group). 

Thus, De La Torre-Magdaleno’s withholding of removal claim fails. 
 3 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because De 

La Torre-Magdaleno failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See 

Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish 

the necessary “state action” for CAT relief). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider De La Torre-Magdaleno’s contentions 

regarding his asylum claim because he did not exhaust them before the agency. 

See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks 

jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.