NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANKLIN HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 18-72231

Agency No. A094-292-595

MEMORANDUM*

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

Submitted January 15, 2021**

Pasadena, California

Before: FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,*** District 

Judge.

Petitioner Franklin Hernandez Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FILED

JAN 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his 

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

The BIA declined to reach the substance of Hernandez Gonzalez’s asylum 

and withholding claims after finding his knowing transport of guns and drugs 

triggered the serious nonpolitical crime bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii) 

(ineligibility for relief where “there are serious reasons for believing that the alien 

has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States prior to the 

arrival of the alien in the United States”). 

Hernandez Gonzalez raises three arguments in response. First, he argues that 

we should balance the nature of his offense against the degree of persecution he 

fears based on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on 

Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status. However, the United 

States Supreme Court has rejected Hernandez Gonzalez’s proposed balancing test, 

and his argument therefore lacks merit. See INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 

427-28 (1999) (holding UN handbook “is not binding on the Attorney General, the 

BIA, or United States courts” and deferring to the BIA’s determination that the 

statute in question “require[d] no additional balancing of the risk of persecution”).

Second, Hernandez Gonzalez argues that he was under duress at the time he 

committed serious nonpolitical crimes. The BIA did not err in concluding that
3 

Hernandez Gonzalez’s claim fails due to his inability to establish an immediate 

threat and because he could have escaped the threatened harm during the monthslong period in question. See United States v. Vasquez-Landaver, 527 F.3d 798, 802 

(9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Moreno, 102 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 1996).

Third, notwithstanding the serious nonpolitical crime bar, Hernandez 

Gonzalez argues due process requires that his application be reviewed on the 

merits. This argument lacks merit because “courts and agencies are not required to 

make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they 

reach.” INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam); see also 

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

Finally, the BIA did not err in denying Hernandez Gonzalez’s application 

for protection under the CAT. “A petitioner seeking CAT relief must show that it is 

more likely than not that he will be tortured upon removal, and that the torture will 

be inflicted at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the 

government.” Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 2007). Hernandez 

Gonzalez’s claim fails because he has not demonstrated that he was tortured in the 

past, or that there is a direct connection between his allegations and the prospect of 

future torture carried out with the consent or acquiescence of the Honduran 

government.

PETITION DENIED.