Luis Gomez-Cardenas v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS GOMEZ-CARDENAS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71960
Agency No. A087-744-568
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-71960
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 of 3 --

3 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 of 3 --