NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALVARO RODRIGUEZ-AVENDANO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73940 

Agency No. A205-151-054 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Alvaro Rodriguez-Avendano, 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 

 

* 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 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73940 

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for 

review.

Rodriguez-Avendano does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding 

that his asylum application is time-barred. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 

1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived). Thus, 

we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that RodriguezAvendano failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected 

ground. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) 

(“imputed wealthy Americans” not cognizable as a particular social group); 

Delgado-Oritz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-53 (9th Cir. 2010) (“returning 

Mexicans from the United States” not cognizable as a particular social group); 

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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-Avendano’s 

withholding of removal claim fails.
3 16-73940 

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Rodriguez-Avendano failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be 

tortured by the government of Mexico, or with its consent or acquiescence. See 

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Avendano’s contentions 

as to voluntary departure because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See 

Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 2013) (court lacks jurisdiction to 

review issues or claims not presented to the agency). Similarly, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Avendano’s argument that the IJ violated his 

right to due process by failing to advise him of alleged eligibility for administrative 

closure because he failed to exhaust this argument before the BIA. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.