NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

MARIA ISABEL LOPEZ DE LEON,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 19

- 73309 Agency No. A029

- 953

- 624

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Maria Isabel Lopez De Leon , a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing h er appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying h er application s for asylum , withholding of removal , and protectio n under the Convention Against Torture

* 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

JUN 10 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 73309

(“CAT”)

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

1241 (9th Cir. 2020)

. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Lopez De Leon does no t challenge the agency’s determination that she fa iled to demonstrate past persecution , so she has waived that issue

. See Martinez

Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

- 60 (9 th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Lopez De Leon
failed to establish that s he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ( a n 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”)

. 1 We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez De Leon’s claim of persecution
b ased upon the proposed parti cular social group of her family because she did not
raise it b efore the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir.

1 Our conclusion is not affected by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum and withholding of removal claims. Cf. Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 359

- 60 (9th Cir. 2017) (observing t hat in Zetino we drew no distinction between the standards where there was no nexus at all between the feared persecution and the protected ground).3 19

- 73309

2004). Lopez De Leon’s claim of persecution based on political opinion is foreclosed by Henriquez

- Rivas v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1081, 1092

- 93 (9th Cir. 201 3 ) (general opposition to gangs and gang recruitment are not protected grounds). Thus, her asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. We lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to the agency’s denial of Lopez

De Leon’s CAT claim because she did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron , 358 F.3d at 677

- 78.

T he record does not support Lopez De Leon’s claim that the agency failed to
consider relevant country conditions evidence or otherwise failed to review and
consider the evidence presented. See, e.g. , Gonzalez

- Caraveo v. Sessions , 882 F.3d 885, 89 4 (9th Cir. 2018) (“There is no indication that the IJ or BIA did not consider all the evidence before them.”).

We a lso reject Lopez De Leon’s assertion that the agency did not explain
how it reached its conclusion. See, e.g., Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9 th Cir. 2010) ( the agency does not have to write an exegesis on every contention raised)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part
.