NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS GOMEZ-CARDENAS, No. 14-71960 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-744-568 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Luis Gomez-Cardenas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is * 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). 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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Cardenas’ unexhausted contention as to his opinion about government corruption because he failed to raise it to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). The agency did not err in finding that Gomez-Cardenas failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico does not constitute a particular social group). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez-Cardenas otherwise failed to establish that any harm he fears in Mexico will be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an 2 14-71960 applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members has no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Gomez-Cardenas’ withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Gomez-Cardenas failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Ramirez-Munoz, 816 F.3d at 1230. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 14-71960 14-71960 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Luis Gomez-Cardenas v. Jefferson Sessions 16 April 2018 Agency Unpublished 6ce955ee7b1ba530e6d23705e2ae1989df09a155
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals