NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO VASQUEZ VALLE, AKA Silvano Vasquez Valle, AKA Pedro Vasquez,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70977 Agency No. A095

- 747

- 678

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. Pedro Vasquez Valle , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Vasquez’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying Vasquez’s application for asylum ,

* 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 28 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

withholding of remo val , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008) , and w e review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings , Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). Vasquez’s asylum claim fails because he filed his asylum application outside
the one

- year deadline, and the record does not compel the conclusion that he established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)

- (5). The BIA did not err in finding that Vasquez did not establish membership in a cognizable social group of “returning Mexican nationals of perceived wealth

. ” 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 membe rs 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)) ); Barbosa v.
Barr , 926 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 20 19) (returnees with perceived wealth is not a cognizable social group)

. Vasquez waived any challenge to the agency’s finding that he failed to show nexus as to his social group of family by omitting it from his opening brief

. Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 1996).3

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Vasquez otherwise failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected
groun d. 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”)

. Our conclusion is not affected by t he 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, Vasquez’s withholding of removal claim fail s
. Vasquez waived any challenge to the agency’s denial of his CAT claim by omitting it from his opening brief. Martinez

- Serrano , 94 F.3d at 1259

- 60.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.