Court Opinion

ID: 9370045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 18:00:58.628611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.883207
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERICK FRANCISCO MENJIVAR-                        No.   20-72407
HERNANDEZ,
                                                 Agency No. A206-834-315
                Petitioner,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted February 7, 2023**
                                San Francisco, California

Before: BYBEE and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,*** District
Judge.

      Erick Menjivar-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

      *
             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).
      ***
              The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for
the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
review of the Board of Immigration’s (“BIA”) denial of his petition for withholding

of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the

petition.

      To show eligibility for withholding of removal, an applicant bears the burden

of proving that his “life or freedom would be threatened in th[e] country [of

removal] because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular

social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). “To succeed, an

applicant must show a ‘clear probability’ of persecution because of a protected

ground.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting INS v.

Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429–30 (1984)).

      The BIA determined that Menjivar-Hernandez failed to show a nexus between

persecution and a statutorily protected ground. The BIA concluded that the gang

members who targeted Menjivar-Hernandez were motivated by a desire to obtain

money from him, not because of his actual or imputed political opinion or being a

male member of the Menjivar-Hernandez family. The record does not compel a

contrary conclusion. For example, Menjivar-Hernandez’s asylum application states

that he was being extorted because the gang members believed he was wealthy—not

because of his family membership or political opinion. Letters from his family

      1
         Menjivar-Hernandez did not meaningfully contest his asylum and
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claims before the BIA and so we do not
address them.

                                          2
members likewise do not mention any extortion tied to his family membership or

political affiliation. Moreover, Menjivar-Hernandez claims he will be targeted

because of his father’s political activity, but he admits that there is no evidence his

father was harmed by others. And there is no evidence that any other members of

his family were harmed. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

denial of withholding of removal.

      In light of this disposition, we do not reach Menjivar-Hernandez’s remaining

contentions regarding persecution. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th

Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they

reach).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          3