NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 jurisdiction 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 APPEALS
2 

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 supports the agency’s determination that RodriguezMendez 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 criminals motivated by 

theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected 

ground”). Thus, Rodriguez-Mendez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Mendez’s contentions regarding 

nexus to a newly proposed 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 claims 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).

The 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 declining to consider argument raised for the first time on 

appeal); 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 agency erred in 

its analysis of his case. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.