Yesica Canas-Machado v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2023
• Docket: 20-73399
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YESICA CAROLINA CANAS- No. 20-73399 MACHADO; ET AL., Agency Nos. A208-170-739 Petitioners, A208-170-740

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Yesica Carolina Canas-Machado and her minor son, 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 decision

denying their application for asylum, and denying Canas-Machado’s applications

* 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). withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected

ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s

“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random

violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). To the extent

petitioners raise a new particular social group in their opening brief, we lack

jurisdiction to consider the group because they failed to raise it before the agency.

See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks

jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). In light of this

disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contention regarding whether

the harm Canas-Machado suffered rose to the level of persecution. 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). We do not address

petitioners’ contentions as to credibility because the BIA did not deny relief on

those grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.

2 20-73399 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied

upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim and Canas-Machado’s withholding of

removal claim fail.

Because Canas-Machado does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT

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

1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 20-73399