NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

RAMON RODRIGUEZ

- ALCANTAR,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72650 Agency No. A208

- 362

- 583

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2020 * *
Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Rodr i guez - Alcantar , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

* 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

MAY 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 17

- 72650

questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation o f 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, 103 1 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings

. Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, Rodriguez

- Alcantar does not contend that t he BIA erred in its determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of asylum or CAT relief

. Se e Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived ). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to asylum and relief under CAT. The agency did not err in finding that Rodriguez

- Alcantar 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 soci ety in question.’” (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

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

- Munoz v. Holder , 816 F.3d 1226, 1228

- 29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans”3 17

- 72650

returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular soci al group); Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 60 0 F.3d 1148, 1151

- 52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group). We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez

- Alcantar’s political opinion and family

- based social group claims

. 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, Rodriguez

- Alcantar’s withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, Rodriguez

- Alcantar’s claim that the IJ violated due process fails

. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PET ITION FOR REV IEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part .