NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTEMIO PEREZ PEREZ, AKA Artemio Perez, AKA Artimio Perezperez,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. Nos. 15

- 73850 19

- 71599 Agency No. A200

- 157

- 960

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of Order s of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 3, 2020 * *
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Ar temio Perez Perez, 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”)

* 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

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

(petition No. 15

- 73850) , and the BIA’s ord er denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings (petition N o. 19

- 71599). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findin gs. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We review de novo due process claims in immigration proceedings

. Jiang v. Holder , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Perez v. Mukasey , 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review in No. 15

- 73850, and we deny the petition for review in No. 19

- 71599

. As to peti tion No. 15

- 73850 , t he record does not compel the conclusion that
Perez Perez established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1 208.4(a)(4)

- (5)

. Thus, Perez Perez ’ s asylum claim fails. We lack jurisdiction to consider Perez Perez’s contentions as to proposed social groups , an imputed political opinion , and facts related to harm experienced by his family members that he did not raise to the agency

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 67 7

- 7 8 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency)

. We do not consider the materials Perez Perez attached to his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc)

.3

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perez Perez failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected ground

. See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (19 92) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also Zetino v. Holder , 6 22 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 prot ected ground”) ; Santos

- Lemus v. Mukasey , 542 F.3d 738, 746

- 47 (9th Cir. 2008) (r esistance to a
gang ’ s recruitment efforts alone does not constitute political opinion) abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez

- Rivas v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013)

. We do not reach Perez Perez’s contentio ns that his past harm rises to the level of persecution and that the government was or would be unable or unwilling to protect him. See Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA). Thus,
Perez Perez’s withholding of removal claim fail s. We lack jurisdiction to consider Perez Perez’s contentions that he is eligible for relief under CAT because he did not raise this claim before the BIA

. See
Barron , 358 F.3d at 67 7

- 7 8

. We also lack jurisdiction to consider Perez Perez’s contentions that procedural errors by the IJ violated his right to due process and that his prior4

attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not raise th ese claim s before the BIA

. See i d ; see also Liu v. Waters , 55 F.3d 421, 42 5

- 27 (9th Cir. 1995) ( petitioner must first raise claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion to reopen , and must raise procedural due process claims that may be corrected by the administrative tribunal, before the BIA in order for the court to find the claim s exhausted )

. We reject as unsupported by the record Perez Perez’s contention that the
BIA violated hi s due process rights by improperly minimizing his claims

. The BIA did not err in declining to consider Perez Perez ’s arguments regarding his father’s murder, an incident in 1998 , and the beating of his parents that were raised for the first time to the BIA. 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 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)

. As to petition No. 19

- 71599, t he BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Perez Perez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than two years after the order of remo val became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and where
Perez Perez did not establish changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to his claim for relief , see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (requiring material evidence of changed circumstances to qualify for exception to filing deadline for5

motions to reopen) ; see also Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring movant to produce material evidence with motion to reopen t hat conditions in country of nationality had changed). Thus, the government’s motion for summary disposition (Docket Entry No.
31 ) is granted because the questions raised by th e petition for review in No. 19

- 71599 are so insubstantial as not to require fur ther argument. See United States v.
Hooton , 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (stating standard). The government’s motion (Docket Entry No. 31 ) to consolidate these petitions for review in the alternative to granting the motion for summary disposition i s denied as moot

. Perez Perez’s motion for stay of removal (Docket Entry Nos. 1 and 8 in No.
19

- 71599 ) is denied as moot.
NO. 15

- 73850 : PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
NO. 19

- 71599 : PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIE D.