NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CATARINO ARREZOLA SANCHEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

Nos. 19-72577

 20-71059

Agency No. A096-477-529 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 

Catarino Arrezola Sanchez, 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 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

MAY 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-72577 

(petition No. 19-72577), and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider and 

terminate proceedings (petition No. 20-71059). We have jurisdiction under 8 

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. 

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for 

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 

400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review. 

As to petition No. 19-72577, substantial evidence supports the agency’s 

determination that Arrezola Sanchez failed to establish he was or would be 

persecuted on account of a protected ground, including membership in a familybased social group. See 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”); 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”). In his opening 

brief, Arrezola Sanchez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination 

that his returnee-based social group was not cognizable. See Lopez-Vasquez v. 

Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and 

argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, Arrezola Sanchez’s asylum 

and withholding of removal claims fail.
3 19-72577 

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Arrezola Sanchez’s remaining 

contentions regarding the merits of his asylum and withholding of removal claims. 

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

Arrezola Sanchez 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).

We reject as unsupported by the record Arrezola Sanchez’s contentions that 

the agency applied incorrect legal standards and ignored evidence in deciding his 

claims. 

As to petition No. 20-71059, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Arrezola Sanchez’s motion to reconsider and terminate, where his contention that 

the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by 

Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he lack of time, 

date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration 

court of jurisdiction over her case.”). 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.