NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTOS R. LOPEZ-RIVERA, AKA 

SANTOS ROGELIO LOPEZ,

 Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 15-72838

Agency No. A 095-008-224

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 5, 2019**

Pasadena, California

Before: FARRIS, MCKEOWN, and PARKER, *** Circuit Judges.

* 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).

*** The Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge 

for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

FILED

NOV 12 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

Petitioner Santos R. Lopez-Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks 

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order affirming the decision of 

the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). LopezRivera contends that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal because 

he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his membership in a 

“particular social group.” See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(1)(42)(A) (asylum), 1231(b)(3) 

(withholding of removal). He describes his social group “as returning Salvadorans, 

accompanied by minor United States citizen children, who become targets of 

violence perpetrated by local gangs and associated criminal elements, including 

corrupt law enforcement, who the Salvadoran government is unable or unwilling to 

control.” Pet’r’s Br. at 1-2. Lopez-Rivera also contends that he has established the 

need for protection under CAT. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)

and deny the petition.1

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Lopez-Rivera did not 

establish that any harm he fears in El Salvador would be on account of his 

membership in a “particular social group.” Lopez-Rivera testified before the IJ

1 The facts are familiar to the parties and are restated here only as necessary to 

resolve the issues of the petition for review. 
-3-

that he fears returning to El Salvador due to general corruption and because gangs 

would target him as they would perceive him as having money. However, as we 

have previously held, a “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated 

by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected 

ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, 

Lopez-Rivera’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Id. at 1015-16.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Lopez-Rivera 

has not established his membership in a “particular social group.” Like “similar 

cases involving the type of . . . social group alleged by [Lopez-Rivera],” his 

proposed social group “is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group.” See, 

e.g., Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (“Petitioners’ proposed 

social group, returning Mexicans from the United States” not a cognizable social 

group); Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2019) (social group 

described as those “returning to Mexico [from] the United States [who] are 

believed to be wealthy . . . . too broad”). Moreover, as the BIA correctly held, the 

record does not support the conclusion that individuals in his proposed category 

are perceived as a distinct social group in El Salvador. Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). 
-4-

Lopez-Rivera also asserts that he has established grounds for CAT relief. 

However, Lopez-Rivera only discusses the standard for CAT relief. He offers no 

reasons for why the BIA erred. Because Lopez-Rivera has offered no argument in 

support of his assertion, we deem it waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94

F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996). 

PETITION DENIED.