NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS CARLOS LEYVA LOPEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71907 

Agency No. A205-489-552 

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.

Luis Carlos Leyva Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Lopez’s 

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

for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 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

AUG 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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). We 

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

453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lopez failed to 

establish extraordinary circumstances or changed conditions to excuse the untimely 

filing of his asylum application. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 649 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D)). Thus, Lopez’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that the indirect 

threats made against Lopez and Lopez’s having been followed while driving in 

Mexico do not rise to the level of past persecution. See Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 

F.3d 667, 672 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[P]ersecution is an extreme concept that does not 

include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” (citation 

omitted)).

The BIA did not err in concluding that Lopez failed to 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 
3 

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 Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 

2019) (holding that individuals returning to Mexico from the United States who are 

believed to be wealthy does not constitute a particular social group).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Lopez otherwise 

failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and 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, Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be 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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.