NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID NEFTALIN GARCIA LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 73593 Agency No. A206

- 269

- 439

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 22 , 2020 * *

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. David Neftalin Garcia Lopez , a native and citizen of Guatemala , petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application s for asylum,

* 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

SEP 24 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 14

- 73593

withholding of removal , and protection under the Conv ention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review t he agency’s determination that Garcia Lopez did not demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse his untimely asylum a pplication be cause Garcia Lopez failed to challenge that
determination before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004). We also lack jurisdiction to review Garcia Lopez’s claim that the

agency committed legal error by “ mischaracteriz ing his particular soci al group , and therefore, fail ed to make a case specific determination as to whether his particular social group is recognized by Guatemalan society” because Garcia Lopez did not
raise th is argument before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Sola v. Holde r , 720 F.3d 1134, 1135

- 36 (9th Cir. 2013) (the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider unexhausted claims that could have been corrected by the BIA). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Garcia Lopez
failed to establish he would be pers ecuted on account of 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 motivated by theft or random violence by gang3 14

- 73593

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”)

. Thus, Garcia Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
S ubstantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Garcia Lopez f

ailed 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 Guatemala

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009 ). Finally, because we do not consider the additional evidence submitted with Garcia Lopez’s reply b rief , the government’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 28) is denied as moot

. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record underlying the BIA’s decision)

. PETITION FOR REVI EW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part
.