Lopez-Mejia v. Garland

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLEMENTE GABRIEL LOPEZ-MEJIA, No. 23-601 Agency No. Petitioner, A209-117-825 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Clemente Gabriel Lopez-Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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

* 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). Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d

1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lopez-Mejia

failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.

See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The applicant must

demonstrate a nexus between her past or feared harm and a protected ground.”

(citation omitted)); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an

applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”).

Thus, his asylum claim fails. Because Lopez-Mejia failed to establish any nexus at

all, he also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-

Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

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

contentions regarding the cognizability of his proposed particular social group.

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 also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection

because petitioner 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 Guatemala. See

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must be

2 23-601 ‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public

official or other person acting in an official capacity’” (internal citation omitted)).

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 23-601