NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CATARINO ARREZOLA SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No s
. 19

- 72577 20

- 71059 Agency No. A096

- 477

- 529

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of Order s of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 18, 2021 * *
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Catarino Arrezola Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of t he Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) ord er dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Co nvention 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

MAY 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 72577

(petition No. 19

- 72577 ), and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider and terminate proceedings (petition No. 20

- 71059 ). 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 review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review. As to petition No. 19

- 72577 , s ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Arrezola Sanchez failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground , including membership in a family

based social group

. See Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 100 7, 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”). In his opening brief, Arrezola Sanchez does not challenge the agency’s di spositive determination
that his returnee

- based social group was not cognizable

. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, Arrezola Sanchez ’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail.3 19

- 72577

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Arrezola Sanchez ’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of his asylum and withholding of removal claim s
. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Arrezola Sanchez failed to show it is more likely than not he will b e 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). We reject as unsupported by the record Arrezola Sanchez’s contentions that the agency applied incorrect leg al standards and ignored evidence in deciding his
claims

. As to petition No. 20

- 71059 , the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arrezola Sanchez’s motion to reconsider and terminate , where his contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdict ion over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“ [T] he lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over her case

. ”)

. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION S FOR REVIEW DENIED.