
    JOHANNA LISBETH FUENTES-ROMERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-20.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 31, 2014.
    
      Andrew P. Johnson, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; Jennifer Williams, Senior Litigation Counsel; Lance L. Jolley, Trial Attorney, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: ROBERTA. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Johanna Lisbeth Fuentes-Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of a December 13, 2012, order of the BIA affirming the October 26, 2011, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See In re Johanna Lisbeth Fuentes-Romero, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Dec. 13, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 26, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

We review the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir.2005). The applicable standards of review are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009).

First, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s preter-mission of Fuentes-Romero’s asylum application as untimely, as Fuentes-Romero presents no constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). To the extent Fuentes-Romero attempts to raise any constitutional claims or questions of law, she failed to exhaust such claims before the agency. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 124 (2d Cir.2007). We therefore dismiss the petition to the extent that it challenges the pretermission of her asylum claim.

Second, we discern no error in the agency’s finding that Fuentes-Romero failed to show that she belongs to a particular social group, as required to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The agency properly rejected Fuentes-Romero’s proposed social group of persons with parents in the United States who are perceived to have money, as wealth or perceived wealth is not a cognizable social group. Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70, 73-74 (2d Cir.2007). Fuentes-Romero did not argue before the agency that she belongs to the social group “women without male protection,” and we decline to reach that unex-hausted claim. Lin Zhong, 480 F.3d at 124.

Finally, Fuentes-Romero did not demonstrate that she was eligible for CAT relief, as she failed to provide particularized evidence establishing that she would be tortured with government acquiescence if returned to El Salvador. See Mu Xiang Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir.2005).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.  