NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

MARIO GARCIA

- CAMEY,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70075 Agency No. A095

- 757

- 415

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 9, 2020 * *
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER , Circuit Judges

. Mario Garcia

- Camey, native and citizen of Guatemala , petition s pro se for review o f the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ( “ BIA ” ) order dis missing h is appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction un der 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

* 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

NOV 16 2020
MO LLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id

. at 1241

- 42. We deny the petition for review. Garcia

- Camey does not raise, and has thus waived, any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was untimely

. 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).
S ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia

- Camey failed to establish he was persecuted on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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”)

. The BIA did not err in finding that Garcia

- Camey failed to establish membership in a cogni zable 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 who3

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 Diaz

- Reynoso v. Barr , 968 F.3d 1070, 1080 (9th Cir. 2020) (particular social group must exist independently of the harm asserted)

. Thus, Garcia

- Camey’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Garcia

- Camey failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortu red by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala

. See Wakkary v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1067

- 68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture). We reject Garcia

- Camey’s contention that the agency applied the wrong standar d in analyzing his CAT claim.
As stated in the court’s May 10 , 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED .