NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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 fro m 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 public ation 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 73940

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is gov erned 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 Rodriguez

Avendano 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) ( “i mputed wealthy Americans” not c ognizable as a particular social group); Delgado

- Oritz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151

- 53 (9th Cir. 2010) (“r eturning Mexicans from the United States” not cognizable as a particular social group); Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (appl icant’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 ag ency’s denial of CAT relief because Rodriguez

- Avendano failed to show it is more likely than not that he w ill 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, w e 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 f

ailed to exhaust this argument before the BIA

. See id

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.