Court Opinion

ID: 9865560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:00:41.115473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:18.616005
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED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

ANA VICTORIA ROJAS PORTILLO; et                 No. 22-2058
al.,                                            Agency Nos.
                                                A209-979-538
             Petitioners,                       A209-979-537
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
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.

      Ana Victoria Rojas Portillo and her minor child, natives and citizens of El

Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying

      *
             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).
their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d

785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

      Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived

challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determinations that they failed to establish past

persecution, nexus to a protected ground, or a well-founded fear of future

persecution, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,

1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’

remaining contentions regarding whether the past harm rose to the level of

persecution, or whether the proposed particular social groups of “members of the

Rojas-Portillo family” and “witnesses to criminal activity in El Salvador” are

cognizable. 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). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

      Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived

challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See Lopez-

Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                    22-2058