Court Opinion

ID: 9398268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 18:01:12.72573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.863892
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAY 30 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABRIEL GONZALEZ MARTINEZ,                      No. 21-265
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A208-825-650
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Gabriel Gonzalez Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro

se 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, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”), and denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We

      *
            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).
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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the

petition for review.

      We do not disturb the agency’s determination that Gonzalez Martinez

failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See

Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an

extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society

regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also

Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not

resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review applies, where result

would be the same under either standard). Substantial evidence supports the

agency’s conclusion that Gonzalez Martinez failed to establish a reasonable

possibility of future persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of

future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Gonzalez Martinez’s asylum claim

fails. Because Gonzalez Martinez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he

failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez

v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021).

      In light of this disposition, we need not reach Gonzalez Martinez’s

remaining contentions regarding nexus and the cognizability of his proposed

particular social groups. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.

                                         2                                    21-265
2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the

results they reach).

      Because Gonzalez Martinez does not challenge the agency’s

humanitarian asylum or CAT determinations, we do not address them. See

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding Gonzalez Martinez failed

to establish changed country conditions in Mexico. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90 (evidence must be

“qualitatively different” to warrant reopening).

      We reject Gonzalez Martinez’s contention that the BIA’s citation to

Matter of A-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018), which was later vacated by

Matter of A-B-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 307 (A.G. 2021), necessitates remand, because

the agency’s persecution findings are supported.

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        3                                   21-265