MARTIN LOMELI-GASPAR, AKA Jorge Alberto Castillo, AKA Jorge Castillo- Belecha, AKA… v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN LOMELI-GASPAR, AKA Jorge
Alberto Castillo, AKA Jorge Castillo-
Belecha, AKA Javier Garcia-Rubio,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70063
Agency No. A089-775-912
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Martin Lomeli-Gaspar, 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 asylum, withholding of
* 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
MAY 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70063
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 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 deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Lomeli-Gaspar does not make any arguments
challenging the agency’s dispositive time bar determination and denial of his CAT
claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues
raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Lomeli-Gaspar’s asylum and CAT
claims.
The agency did not err in finding that Lomeli-Gaspar failed to 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.’”) (citation omitted); see also
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70063
“imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular
social group); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010)
(concluding “returning Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a
particular social group). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Lomeli-Gaspar 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) (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, Lomeli-Gaspar’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --