NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

JUAN ANTONIO CRUZ

- GARCIA, AKA Juan Anotnio Cruz, AKA Juan Antonio Cruz, Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 71949 Agency No. A070

- 947

- 374

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019 **
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Antonio Cruz

- Garcia , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
Cruz’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying Cruz’s application for cancellation of removal, a sylum , withholding of removal , and relief under the

* 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

AUG 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. 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) . W e review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings

. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). The BIA did not err in finding that Cruz 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 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)) ); see also Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (returnees from the United States “ is too broad to qualify as a co gnizable social group ”) ; Barbosa v. Barr , 926 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2019) (returnees with perceived wealth is not a cognizable social group). We lack jurisdiction to
review Cruz’s claim based on a social group of family, because he did not present it to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency)

. Substantial3

evidence supports the agency ’s conclusion that Cruz otherwise failed to establish
he would be persecuted on account 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”)

. Thus, Cruz ’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cruz failed to show it is more likely than not he w ill be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador

. See Aden v.
Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) ; Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033

- 35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief)

. Cruz waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of his cancellation of removal claim by omitting it from his opening brief. Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part
.