
    Benigno GARCIA-CALLEJAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70265
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed October 3, 2017
    Benigno Garda-Callejas, Blythe, CA, pro se.
    Matt Crapo, OIL, 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: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Benigno Garda-Callejas, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 review the social group Garda-Callejas presents for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no subject-matter jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in. administrative proceedings below).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Garda-Callejas failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears from gangs and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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”).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Garcia-Callejas failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned to Honduras. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

Finally, we reject Garcia-Callejas’s due process contention regarding IJ bias because he did not show error. See Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     