NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS DOMINGUEZ RODRIGUEZ, AKA Jose Luis Dominguez,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72434 Agency No. A205

- 313

- 318

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 7, 2020 * *
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Dominguez Rodriguez , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for withholding of removal , relief under the Convent ion Against Torture (“CAT”) , and

* 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

APR 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 17

- 72434

cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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.
Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 103 1 (9th Cir. 2014) . We d eny in part and d ismiss in part the petition for review. In his opening brief, Dominguez Rodriguez does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief

. Se e 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). He also does not challenge the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal

. See id. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to relief under CAT an d cancellation of removal. The agency did not err in finding Dominguez Rodriguez 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 immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within t he 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 1053,3 17

- 72434

1059

- 60 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding that individuals returning to Mexico from the United States who are believed to be wealth y does not constitute a particular social group). To the extent Dominguez Rodriguez raises a new proposed social group in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider it

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

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

. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Dominguez Rodriguez otherwise failed to establish that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground

. S ee 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 abuse its discretion in dec lining to remand under Barajas

- Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017)

. See Movsisian v. Ashcroft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (BIA’s denial of a motion to remand review ed for abuse of discretion ); see also B arajas

- Romero , 846 F.3d at 360 (d iscussing Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) having drawn no distinction between the “one central reason” and “a reason” standards where there was no nexus at all to a protected ground). Thus, Dominguez Rodriguez ’s withholding of removal claim fails. Dominguez Rodriguez’s request s , raised in his opening brief, to remand for4 17

- 72434

the production of further evidence and to grant withholding of removal are denied.
PETITION FOR REV IEW D ENIED in part; D ISMISSED in part .