NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEONEL DELATORRE-GONZALEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-71532 

Agency No. A205-322-295 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Leonel Delatorre-Gonzalez, 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 decision denying his application for withholding of 

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. 

* 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 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-71532 

Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference 

is owed 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 

F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding that Delatorre-Gonzalez did not establish 

membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 

1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social 

group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members 

who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and 

(3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 

26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). 

In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that 

Delatorre-Gonzalez failed to establish that the harm he fears would be because of a 

protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 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”), see 

also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide 

some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 

849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting political opinion claim where petitioner did not 
3 17-71532 

present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s 

ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner). Our 

conclusion is not affected by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum 

and withholding of removal claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 

360 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing Zetino having drawn no distinction between the 

standards where there was no nexus at all between the feared persecution and 

political opinion). 

Thus, Delatorre-Gonzalez’s withholding of removal claim fails. 

Delatorre-Gonzalez does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. 

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, we 

deny the petition for review as to his CAT claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.