NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCO ANTONIO SEVILLA

CASTANEDA, 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 70113

withholding of removal and relief under the Co nvention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdi ction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We r eview de novo questions of law, giving deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the gov erning statutes and regulations. Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th C ir. 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

. W e 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 S evilla

- 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 members3 17

- 70113

bears no nexus to a protected ground.” ).
Substantial evidenc e 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 t he
evidence does not indicate “ a reason able 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, w e deny Sevilla

- Castaneda’s motion to supplement the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 2 1). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part
.