NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCO ANTONIO SEVILLACASTANEDA, AKA Antonio Sepulvera 

Contreras, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-70113 

Agency No. A087-848-413 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Marco Antonio Sevilla-Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his 

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for 

 

* 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

DEC 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-70113 

withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of 

law, giving deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and 

regulations. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review 

for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 

F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the 

petition for review. 

We lack jurisdiction to address Sevilla-Castaneda’s proposed social group 

consisting of “young persons,” his contention about persecution based on political 

opinion, and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he did not raise 

these to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004); 

Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1995) (ineffective assistance of counsel

claim must be raised with the agency first). 

The agency did not err in finding that Sevilla-Castaneda’s proposed group of 

returning Mexicans who are perceived as wealthy do not constitute a cognizable 

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

substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Sevilla-Castaneda has not shown

that his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his family. See Zetino v. 

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from 

harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members 
3 17-70113 

bears no nexus to a protected ground.”).

Substantial evidence also supports denial of Sevilla-Castaneda’s CAT claim 

because he failed to show that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Garcia-Milian 

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

We reject Sevilla-Castaneda’s argument that the agency violated his due 

process rights by failing to apprise him of apparent eligibility for asylum where the 

evidence does not indicate “a reasonable possibility that the alien [was] eligible for 

relief at the time of the hearing.” United States v. Guzman-Ibarez, 792 F.3d 1094, 

1101 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Finally, we deny Sevilla-Castaneda’s motion to supplement the record on 

appeal (Docket Entry No. 21). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.