Court Opinion

ID: 4540172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-06-09 20:01:35.293417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:00:09.457036
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 9 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADRIAN LAZARO GASPAR,                           No.    18-71571

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A208-121-722

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      Adrian Lazaro Gaspar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary

departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

      *
             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).
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,

1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

      Lazaro Gaspar does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s

denial of voluntary departure. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-

80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lazaro Gaspar

failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a

protected ground. See 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”). Thus,

Lazaro Gaspar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

      In light of this disposition, we need not reach Lazaro Gaspar’s contention

that his fear of future persecution is subjective genuine and objectively reasonable.

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 relief because

Lazaro Gaspar failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

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

      Lazaro Gaspar’s request to remand, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

                                          2                                   18-71571
See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to

appear need not include time and date of hearing to vest jurisdiction in the

immigration court).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          3                                    18-71571