NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

PEDRO NESTA

- NAJAR,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73610 Agency No. A099

- 505

- 030

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 3, 2020 * *
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Pedro Nesta

- Najar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appe als’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

* 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

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

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 , 37 1 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). W e review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 103 1 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not err in finding that Nesta

- Najar failed to establis h membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social 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)) ) ; see also Delgado

Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151

- 52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group)

. We lack jurisdiction to consider Nesta

- Najar’s co ntention s as to proposed social groups that he did not raise to the agency

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 67 7

- 7 8 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency)

. Thus, Nesta

- Najar’s asylum and withholding o f removal claim s fail

. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Nesta

- Najar’s contentions3

regarding the timeliness of his asylum application

. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decid e issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Nesta

- Najar failed to show that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the governmen t if returned to Mexico

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) ; see also Delgado

- Ortiz , 600 F.3d at 1152 (generalized evidence of violence and crime in petitioner’s home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief)

. We do not consider new evidence that was not part of the record before the
agency
. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part .