
    Emmanuel Mandujano DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72843.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 23, 2015.
    Filed Nov. 12, 2015.
    Jenny Tsai, Green & Tsai, Attorneys at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Linda Y. Cheng, Oil, Daniel Shieh, Esq,, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PAEZ, MURGUIA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Emmanuel Mandujano Dominguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary departure.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Dominguez’s asylum application was time-barred and that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary or changed circumstances excusing his late filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a).

2. We agree with the BIA that Dominguez has not established eligibility for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) on the basis of his membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Even assuming that Dominguez’s family constituted a protected social group, Dominguez failed to show a “clear probability” of future persecution based on his family membership. INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984). His alternative proposed protected social group, Mexican men returning from the United States, is foreclosed by our opinion in Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir.2010). Dominguez failed to produce evidence of political opinion before the IJ.

3. Dominguez’s CAT claim is also without merit. As the BIA concluded, he did not show that it is more likely than not that he would face torture by or with the acquiescence of the Mexican government. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(l)-(2).

4. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s dismissal of the IJ’s discretionary denial of voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f). Accordingly, that claim is dismissed.

Petition DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     