Court Opinion

ID: 6500463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-15 20:00:38.298245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:09.155557
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 15 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUDY ROBLERO,                                   No.    16-70538

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A095-773-871

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

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before:      SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Rudy Roblero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

      *
             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).
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 Roblero failed

to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was or will be 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”); see

also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute,

standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground);

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, Roblero’s withholding of

removal claim fails. In light of this disposition, we need not reach his remaining

contentions regarding the merits of his claim. 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 supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Roblero failed to show that it is more likely than not that he will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

                                          2                                      16-70538
Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                       3                              16-70538