NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS ARTURO MENDOZA LOPEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71888 

Agency No. A208-121-649 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Arturo Mendoza Lopez, 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 withholding of 

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

* 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

MAY 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-71888 

the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th 

Cir. 2006). 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 deny in part and dismiss in part 

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Mendoza Lopez did 

not establish past persecution where he was not harmed or threatened in Mexico. 

See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding no past 

persecution where petitioner did not suffer significant physical violence).

The agency did not err in determining that a proposed particular social group 

based on Mendoza Lopez’s status as a returnee with perceived wealth is not 

cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (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 Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 

2019) (concluding that “individuals ‘returning to Mexico from the United States 

who are believed to be wealthy’” did not constitute a particular social group); 
3 17-71888 

Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that 

“imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular 

social group).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Mendoza Lopez 

failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a family-based particular 

social group. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant 

“must provide some evidence of [motive], either direct or circumstantial”); see also

Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, 

standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground); 

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be 

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang 

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).

Thus, Mendoza Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

To the extent Mendoza Lopez proposes new particular social groups in his 

opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider them because he failed to raise 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).

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

Mendoza Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
4 17-71888 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.