NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN PABLO MORALES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70691 

Agency No. A077-969-030 

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 Pablo Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Morales’s appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Morales’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.

Morales has waived any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination 

that his asylum application was untimely. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 

1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, Morales’s asylum claim fails.

As to withholding of removal, the BIA did not err in finding that Morales 

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 the society in question’” (quoting 

Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Morales 

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 
3 

violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Our conclusion 

is not affected by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum and 

withholding of removal claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 

(9th Cir. 2017) (discussing Zetino v. Holder having drawn no distinction between 

the standards where there was no nexus at all to a protected ground).

Thus, Morales’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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

Morales 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.