Court Opinion

ID: 9865800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 21:00:36.673073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:55:38.439467
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LOREN ALELI OROZCO-                             No. 23-126
DOMINGUEZ; et al.,                              Agency Nos.
                                                A201-538-926
             Petitioners,                       A201-538-927
                                                A201-538-928
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                    MEMORANDUM*
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Loren Aleli Orozco-Dominguez and her two minor children, natives and

citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision

      *
             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).
denying their application for asylum, and denying Orozco-Dominguez’s

applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 the opening brief does not challenge the agency’s dispositive

adverse credibility determination, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v.

Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, we deny the petition for

review as to petitioners’ asylum claim and Orozco-Dominguez’s withholding of

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

contentions regarding the merits of the claims. 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 Orozco-Dominguez’s

request for CAT protection because, even if credible, she 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 Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047

(9th Cir. 2009).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          2                                  23-126