Court Opinion

ID: 9374656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 18:01:01.875041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.173107
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN ALONSO HERNANDEZ MENA,                    No.    20-72292

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A208-900-714

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Kevin Alonso Hernandez Mena, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

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

      *
             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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez

Mena failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected

ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must

provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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 light of this disposition, we need not reach Hernandez

Mena’s remaining contentions regarding his applications for asylum and

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). Thus, Hernandez Mena’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Hernandez Mena failed to show it is more likely than not he will be

                                         2                                      20-72292
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El

Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                  20-72292