NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO GUADALUPE MORALES

GONZALEZ, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 21

- 70464 Agency No. A202

- 011

- 126

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Immigration Judge April 17, 2023 * *
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Mario Guadalupe Morales

- Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under
8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Guatemala and is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order.

* 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

APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 70464

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F. 3d 1238, 1241

- 42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id

. We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Morales

- Gonzalez failed to establish his resistance

- based particular social group is socially distinct.
See id. at 1243 (absence of society

- specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, the IJ did not err in concluding that Morales

- Gonzalez did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 20 16) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within t he society in question’” (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Morales

Gonzalez failed to show a reasonable possibility of persecution in Guatemala on account of a protected ground

. See Bartolome v. Sessions , 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did not show a3 21

- 70464

nexus to a protected ground)

. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Morales

- Gonzalez’s remaini ng contention regarding whether the government was unable or unwilling to protect him

. 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). Substantial e vidence also supports the agency’s determination that Morales

Gonzalez failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala

. See Andrade

- Garcia v. Lynch , 828 F.3d 829, 836

- 37 (petitioner failed to demonstrate government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of future torture).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.