Court Opinion

ID: 9911446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-19 21:01:08.034475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:01.226979
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIX MAURICIO GONZALEZ,                        No. 23-40
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A206-452-554
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before:      WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Felix Mauricio Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

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

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

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

evidence the BIA’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241

(9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

      Because Mauricio Gonzalez does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive

determination that he failed to establish nexus to a protected ground, we do not

address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

The BIA did not err in declining to reach the IJ’s determination that his past harm

did not rise to the level of persecution, 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), and we do not reach Mauricio Gonzalez’s

contentions as to the merits of this issue because the BIA did not deny relief on this

ground, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In

reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by

that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, Mauricio

Gonzalez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection because

petitioner 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 El Salvador. See Aden v.

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                      23-40