NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FIDEL MERCADO ESPINOZA, AKA 

Roberto Gutierrez Sanchez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72953 

Agency No. A077-584-556 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 18, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Fidel Mercado Espinoza, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

* 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).

FILED

SEP 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-72953 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mercado 

Espinoza failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was 

or would be on account of a protected ground, including membership in a 

particular social group. 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 Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if 

membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show 

that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group” 

(emphasis in original)). Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

The BIA did not err in declining to consider Mercado Espinoza’s arguments 

regarding a new social group that he raised for the first time to the BIA. See 

Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (BIA did not err in 

declining to consider argument raised for the first time on appeal); see also Matter 

of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 190-91 (BIA 2018) (where the IJ did 

not have an opportunity to make relevant factual findings, the BIA cannot do so in 

the first instance on appeal).
3 18-72953 

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

Mercado Espinoza failed to show it is more likely than not he will 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).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Mercado Espinoza’s remaining 

contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts 

and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they 

reach). 

Mercado Espinoza’s motion to hold the case in abeyance (Docket Entry No. 

20) is denied. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.