Court Opinion

ID: 9901958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 19:00:44.96028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.154732
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                         NOV 22 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISTINA VALLE-CERVANTES,                       No. 22-1846
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A087-953-907
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Cristina Valle-Cervantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

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

      *
             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).
removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and

cancellation of removal. 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.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Valle-

Cervantes failed to establish she would be persecuted 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”); Barajas-

Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, Valle-Cervantes’s

withholding of removal claim fails.

      In light of this disposition, we need not reach Valle-Cervantes’s remaining

contentions regarding the merits of her withholding 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 also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Valle-Cervantes failed to show it is more likely than not she 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).

      We do not consider the materials Valle-Cervantes references in her opening

                                        2                                  22-1846
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,

963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        3                                   22-1846