Court Opinion

ID: 9841512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 19:01:13.373052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:30.430476
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         SEP 22 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE ALEXANDER NUNEZ; et al.,                   No. 22-1409
                                                 Agency Nos.
             Petitioners,                        A209-162-351
                                                 A209-162-331
 v.
                                                 A209-162-330
                                                 A209-162-329
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Jorge Alexander Nunez, Zulma Carolina Salazar de Nunez, and their

children, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without opinion an immigration

judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,

      *
             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).
and protection under the Convention Against 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.

      We do not disturb the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to

establish they suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v.

Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s past experiences,

including two beatings, even considered cumulatively, did not compel a finding of

past persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th

Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review

applies, where result would be the same under either standard).

      Because petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination that internal

relocation would be reasonable, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v.

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

      Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

      In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions regarding nexus or the cognizability of their proposed particular social

group. 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).

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

                                        2                                      22-1409
because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be 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 temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                   22-1409