NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERICK FRANCISCO MENJIVARHERNANDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-72407 

Agency No. A206-834-315 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 7, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: BYBEE and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,*** District 

Judge.

Erick Menjivar-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

* 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 Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for 

the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

FILED

FEB 10 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

review of the Board of Immigration’s (“BIA”) denial of his petition for withholding 

of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the 

petition.

To show eligibility for withholding of removal, an applicant bears the burden 

of proving that his “life or freedom would be threatened in th[e] country [of 

removal] because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 

social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). “To succeed, an

applicant must show a ‘clear probability’ of persecution because of a protected

ground.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting INS v.

Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429–30 (1984)).

The BIA determined that Menjivar-Hernandez failed to show a nexus between 

persecution and a statutorily protected ground. The BIA concluded that the gang 

members who targeted Menjivar-Hernandez were motivated by a desire to obtain 

money from him, not because of his actual or imputed political opinion or being a

male member of the Menjivar-Hernandez family. The record does not compel a 

contrary conclusion. For example, Menjivar-Hernandez’s asylum application states 

that he was being extorted because the gang members believed he was wealthy—not 

because of his family membership or political opinion. Letters from his family 

1 Menjivar-Hernandez did not meaningfully contest his asylum and 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claims before the BIA and so we do not 

address them.
3 

members likewise do not mention any extortion tied to his family membership or 

political affiliation. Moreover, Menjivar-Hernandez claims he will be targeted 

because of his father’s political activity, but he admits that there is no evidence his 

father was harmed by others. And there is no evidence that any other members of 

his family were harmed. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s 

denial of withholding of removal.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Menjivar-Hernandez’s remaining 

contentions regarding persecution. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th

Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they 

reach).

PETITION DENIED.