NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 his 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 APPEALS
2 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, 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 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 Santiago-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 within 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 Santiago-
3 17-72446 

Martinez otherwise failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in Mexico 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”). Thus, Santiago-Martinez’s withholding of removal claim fails. 

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

Santiago-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 REVIEW DENIED.