NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 V asquez - R amos , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal f rom 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 APPEALS2

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 , 37 1 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agenc y’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 th e petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider the proposed social groups that Vasquez

Ramos raises for the first time in his opening brief because he did not raise the m 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 V asquez - R amos 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.3d3

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 V asquez - R amos 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, V asquez - R amos’ withholding of
removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also sup ports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
V asquez - R amos 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) ; s ee 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)

. V asquez - R amos ’ contentions that the agency violated his right to due process f ail. 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 re levant evidence)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part
.