Court Opinion

ID: 9926467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 20:01:07.233564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:07.332614
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GRISELDA BARRERA                                No. 23-439
MAZARIEGOS; et al.,                             Agency Nos.
                                                A215-647-852
             Petitioners,                       A215-647-853
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Griselda Barrera Mazariegos and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of

Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”)

      *
             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).
decision denying their application for asylum, and Barrera Mazariegos’s

applications for withholding of removal 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.

      Because petitioners do not challenge the agency’s dispositive adverse

credibility determination, 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 on the merits, 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 petitioners’ contentions as to the merits

because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds, 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, petitioners’ asylum claim and Barrera

Mazariegos’s withholding of removal claim fail.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Barrera Mazariegos’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency

found not credible, and Barrera Mazariegos does not point to any other evidence in

the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be

                                        2                                    23-439
tortured in Guatemala. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.

2003).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                      3                                   23-439