Court Opinion

ID: 9891794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:00:38.014142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:33.362654
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

JOSE MANUEL LOPEZ MORENO,                       No. 22-1757
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A205-711-176
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

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

      Jose Manuel Lopez Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

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

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, 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”), 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.

      Because Lopez Moreno does not contest the agency’s determination that he

waived challenge to the asylum and cancellation of removal denials, we do not

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

2013).

      Lopez Moreno also does not challenge the agency’s dispositive

determination that he failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a

protected ground. See id. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Lopez

Moreno’s withholding of removal claim.

      In light of this disposition, we need not reach Lopez Moreno’s remaining

contentions regarding the merits of his withholding of removal 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 Lopez Moreno 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 Mexico.

See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture

                                        2                                   22-1757
too speculative).

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

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                       3                                 22-1757