NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS ROBERT CRUZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73811 

Agency No. A095-747-476 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 18, 2019**

San Francisco, California

Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO,*** District 

Judge.

Carlos Robert Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeal’s order dismissing his appeal from an 

* 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 Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for 

the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

FILED

SEP 11 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73811 

immigration judge’s decision finding him ineligible for withholding of removal 

and denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our 

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 

agency’s determination that a petitioner’s past conviction constituted a 

“particularly serious crime” rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal. 

Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for substantial 

evidence the denial of CAT relief. Id. at 1127. We deny the petition for review.

1. The agency did not abuse its discretion in concluding that, under the 

circumstances here, Cruz’s conviction for carrying a loaded stolen firearm in 

public under California Penal Code § 12031(a)(1) with an enhancement for street 

gang activity pursuant to California Penal Code § 186.22(a) was a particularly 

serious crime, rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); Konou, 750 F.3d at 1126–27 (listing factors to consider in 

determining whether a crime is particularly serious and finding no abuse of 

discretion in that determination); see also Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 

1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[N]o Ninth Circuit decision [holds that the BIA can 

make the ‘particularly serious crime’ determination based solely on the elements of 

the offense] and our considered analysis of the statute at issue compels a contrary 

conclusion.”). Because the particularly serious crime determination is dispositive, 

we do not, and the BIA was not required to, address Cruz’s other contentions 
3 15-73811 

regarding eligibility for withholding of removal. 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).

2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of protection under CAT, 

where the evidence shows only the general possibility of torture, and not a 

likelihood that Cruz will be targeted for harm. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 

F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that general reports indicating torture 

occurs in a petitioner’s home country do not compel conclusion a particular 

petitioner will be targeted); see also Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 385–86 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (recognizing that to reverse the agency’s factual findings when 

reviewing for substantial evidence, the record must compel a contrary conclusion).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.