NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JUAN CARLOS RODRIGUEZ

- MENDEZ,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72505 Agency No. A205

- 529

- 809

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 8, 2020 **
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Juan Carlos Rodriguez

- Mendez , 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. Our juris diction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

* 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

JAN 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supp orts the agency’s determination that Rodriguez

Mendez failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial” (emphasis in original)); see also Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by crimin als motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Rodriguez

- Mendez’ s withholding of removal claim fail s
. We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez

- Mendez’s contentions regarding nexus to a newly propo sed social group of “being targeted by the local cartels because he is arriving from outside of the country” because they were not raised to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claim s not presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Rodriguez

- Mendez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico

. See
Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) ; see also Garcia

- Milian v.3

Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033

- 35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief)

. T he BIA did not err by not addressing Rodriguez

- Mendez ’s arguments regarding the timeliness of asylum because the record indicates he did not raise
that claim to the IJ

. See Honcharov v. Barr , 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) ( BIA did not err in declini ng to consider argument raised for the first time on
appea l) ; Matter of J

- Y

- C

- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007) ( issues not raised to the IJ are not properly before the BIA on appeal)

. Lastly, we reject Rodriguez

- Mendez’s contentions that the agenc y erred in its analysis of his case.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part
.