
    Jaime Alvarez RUIZ, AKA Francisco Alvarez, AKA Gerardo Casares, AKA Alex Ramirez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71427
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 20, 2017
    Richard Miyamoto, Attorney, Phung, Miyamoto & Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Jennifer A.- Singer, Russell John Verby, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S, Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jaime Alvarez Ruiz, 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 application for withholding of removal and relief 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

As to past persecution, the agency found Alvarez Ruiz was not credible regarding the only direct past harm he allegedly experienced in Mexico, namely, his claim of arrest and abuse by police. Alvarez Ruiz does not challenge this finding. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are deemed waived). As to future harm, the agency found Alvarez Ruiz’s proposed social group was not cognizable. He does not challenge this finding. See id. Further, we lack jurisdiction to consider the new social group he presents to the court for the first time. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust claims in administrative proceedings below). Because Alvarez Ruiz does not otherwise challenge the BIA’s basis for denying withholding of removal, we deny the petition for review as to this claim.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Alvarez Ruiz’s CAT claim because he did not show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiesce of the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

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