NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMADEO MENDOZA DELGADO,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 13

- 71723 Agency No. A073

- 946

- 254

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 15 , 2018 **
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Amadeo Mendoza Delgado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We deny Mendoza Delgado’s request for oral argument as set forth in his opening brief. 

# FILED

AUG 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 71723

removal, and relief under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 th at deference
is owed to the BIA’ s interpretation of the go verning statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency ’ s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Mendoza Delgado fails to raise any arguments regarding his family as a protected ground

. See Corro

- Barragan v. Holde r , 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief
resulted in waiver ).
Substanti al evidence supports the agency’ s determination that Mendoza Delgado failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador
was or would be on account of a protected ground. See 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”); Santos

- Lemus v. Mukasey , 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) ( rejecting petitioner’ s claim where he “pro vided no evidence that his3 13

- 71723

opposition to the gang’ s criminal activity w as based on political opinion” ) , abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez

- Rivas v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc); see also Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9t h Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a particular 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 soci ety in question.’”) ( citation omitted) ) . Thus, Mendoza Delgado ’ s asylum claim f

ail s . In this case , b ecause Mendoza Delgado failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006)

. Finally, s ubstantial evidence also supports the agency ’s denial of Mendoza Delgado ’s CAT claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government
of El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.