NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEONARDO CRUZ-CHAVEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71430

Agency No. A201-290-014

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Leonardo Cruz-Chavez, 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 decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

* 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 24 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-71430

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. 

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 

F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

Because Cruz-Chavez does not challenge the agency’s determinations as to 

his claims based on the proposed particular social groups of “individuals who 

oppose drug cartels and gangs” and “an individual returning to Mexico from the 

United States who will be perceived as having money,” we do not address them.

See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cruz-Chavez

failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of his membership in 

the proposed particular social group of his family. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 

U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], 

direct or circumstantial”); see also 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”). 

Cruz-Chavez’s contentions that the agency failed to properly address his 

claim based on family membership, erred in its application of law, and denied him 

due process, are not supported by the record. 
3 18-71430

Because Cruz-Chavez’s asylum claim fails on the merits, we need not reach 

his remaining contentions regarding whether he established changed or 

extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application and 

whether he is a class member under Rojas v. Johnson, 305 F. Supp. 3d 1176, 1179 

(W.D. Wash. 2018). 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, Cruz-Chavez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Because Cruz-Chavez does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT 

protection, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.