NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TOMAS CARRILLO-FLORES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 19-71203 

Agency No. A206-547-114 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

 Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Tomas Carrillo-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). Our jurisdiction is 

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s 

* 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

FEB 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-71203 

factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). 

We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Carrillo-Flores’ contentions regarding his 

notice to appear. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). 

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Carrillo-Flores’ contentions regarding 

particular social groups that he did not raise to the agency. See id. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that CarrilloFlores failed to establish that the harm he suffered or fears in Mexico was or would 

be on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 

(9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an 

applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his 

membership in such group”); 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”). 

We reject as unsupported by the record, Carrillo-Flores’ contention that the agency 

misidentified his proposed particular social group. Thus, Carrillo-Flores’ 

withholding of removal claim fails.

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

Carrillo-Flores failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 
3 19-71203 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish 

the necessary state action for CAT relief); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 

F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in 

petitioner’s home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief).

We reject Carrillo-Flores’ contention that the agency failed to consider

evidence. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.