NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AGUSTIN SANTIAGO

- MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72446 Agency No. A205

- 274

- 309

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 7, 2020 * *
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Agustin Santiago

- Martinez, 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 h is applications for asylum, withholding of 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,

* 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

APR 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 17

- 72446

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 , 37 1 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, 103 1 (9th Cir. 2014) . We deny the petition for review. In his opening brief, Santiago

- Martinez does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s dispositive conclusion that his asylum application was untimely, and that he failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances.
See Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). The agency did not err in finding that S antiago

- Martinez 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 w ithin the society in question.’” (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151

- 52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United States” was overbroad and did not constitute a particular social group). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that S antiago

-3 17

- 72446

Martinez otherwise failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. S ee 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, Santiago

- Martinez’ s withholding of re moval claim fail s
. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
S antiago

- Martinez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico

. See Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1067

- 68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture)

. PETITION FOR REV IEW DENIED.