NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REYNA ISABEL ORTIZ ELIAS, AKA Reyna Ortiz Elias,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70332 Agency No. A200

- 696

- 589

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 9, 2020 * *
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Reyna Isabel Ortiz Elias, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of remo val, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* 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

NOV 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social
distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241

- 42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id

. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports th e agency’s determination that Ortiz Elias
failed to establish her proposed social grou p is socially distinct. See id

. at 1243 ( substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that petitioner’s proposed social group was not cognizable because of the absence of socie ty

specific evidence of social distinction )

. Thus, the BIA did not err in concluding
that Ortiz Elias did not establish membersh ip in a cognizable particular social

gr oup. 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 co mmon 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) )). To the extent Ortiz Elias fears harm based on general conditions of violence3

and civil unrest, s ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that she
failed to establish a nexus to 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 motivat ed by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”)

. We lack jurisdiction to consider the new particular social group raised in
Ortiz Elias ’ opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Ortiz Elias’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denia l of CAT relief because Ortiz Elias failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

. W e lack jurisdiction to
consider Ortiz Elias’ contention that the IJ erred in analyzing her CAT claim

. See
Barron , 358 F.3d at 677

- 78. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in par t
.