NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTURO VASQUEZ-RAMOS, AKA 

Arturo Ramos, AKA Jose Ramos Vasques, 

AKA Jose Ramos Vasquez, AKA Arturo 

Romas Bascas, AKA Luis Vasquez-Ramos, 

AKA Arturo Vsquez Ramos, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-73967 

Agency No. A075-092-506 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Arturo Vasquez-Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal 

* 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

DEC 16 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

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, 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 review de novo claims of due process 

violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th 

Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the proposed social groups that VasquezRamos raises for the first time in his opening brief because he did not raise them

before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)

(petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).

The BIA did not err in finding that Vasquez-Ramos did not 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))); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 
3 

1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United 

States” did not constitute a particular social group). Substantial evidence supports 

the agency’s conclusion that Vasquez-Ramos otherwise failed to establish he was 

or would be persecuted on account of 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 violence by gang members 

bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Vasquez-Ramos’ withholding of 

removal claim fails.

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

Vasquez-Ramos 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); see also Garcia-Milian v. 

Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not 

establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).

Vasquez-Ramos’ contentions that the agency violated his right to due 

process fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error 

to prevail on a due process claim); see also Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 

1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must overcome the presumption that BIA 

considered all the relevant evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.