                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 6 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HELI ANDRADE-HURTADO,                           No.    17-72010

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-975-952

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before:      MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Heli Andrade-Hurtado, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of

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.

      *
             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).
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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755

F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

      The record does not compel the conclusion that Andrade-Hurtado

established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum

application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). Thus, Andrade-Hurtado’s asylum

claim fails.

      The agency did not err in finding that Andrade-Hurtado 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.’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26

I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053,

1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding that individuals returning to Mexico from the

United States who are believed to be wealthy does not constitute a particular social

                                         2                                       17-72010
group). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Andrade-

Hurtado otherwise failed to establish that the harm he fears in Mexico would be 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”);

see also Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting a political

opinion claim where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or

ideological opposition to the gang’s ideals or that the gang imputed a particular

political belief to the petitioner). Thus, Andrade-Hurtado’s withholding of

removal claim fails.

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

Andrade-Hurtado failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          3                                   17-72010
