NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTURO VASQUEZ SANTIAGO,

Petitioner,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 21

- 70311

Agency No. A206

- 671

- 257

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 16, 2023 * *

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Arturo Vasquez Santiago , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application s fo r asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* 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

MAY 19 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 70311

(“CAT”)

. We have juris diction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238,

1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.

Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vasquez
Santiago failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a

protected ground. See INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an

applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”) ;

Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 10 16 (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”). In light of this disposition, we

need not reach Vasquez Santiago’s remaining c ontentions regarding his claims for

asylum and withholding of removal

. 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). Thus, Vasquez Santiago’s asy lum and withholding of

removal claims fail

. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Vasquez Santiago 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 Garcia

-

Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014)3 21

- 70311

(“torture must be ‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity’”)

(in ternal citation omitted). Vasquez Santiago’s contentions that the agency applied

the wrong standard or otherwise erred in the CAT analysis are not supported by the

record.

Vasquez Santiago’s contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his

proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide

- Hernandez , 39 F.4th

1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) ( en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice

to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and

8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION F O R REVIEW DENIED.