NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADELSO ENRIQUE JAMIE

- SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 70826 Agency No. A205

- 835

- 220

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019 ** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Adelso Enrique Jamie

- Sanchez, a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal ’ s ( “ BIA ” ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge ’ s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and reli ef under the Convention Against Torture ( “ CAT ” ).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of

* 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

DEC 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 70826

law, Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA ’ s interpr etation 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. Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not err in finding that Jamie

- Sanchez 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 membe rship 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 society in question ’” ( quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Barrios v. Holder , 581 F.3d 849,
854

- 55 (9th Cir. 2009) ( holding that young Guatemalan men who resist gang recruitment is not a particular social group)

. Substantial evidence supports the agency ’ s determination that Jamie

Sanchez failed to demonstrate that the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala

was or would be on account of a protected ground, including his religion

. . See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “ must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial ” ) ; see also Zetino v. Holder , 6223 19

- 70826

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, Jamie

- Sanchez’ s withholding of removal claim fail s
. Substantial evidence also supports the agency ’ s denial of CAT relief because Jamie

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

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to consider Jamie

- Sanchez’s arguments relating to his initial removal proceeding s because he failed to file a timely petition for review of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”); see also Singh v.
INS , 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9 th Cir. 2003) (30

- day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part
.