NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFONSO PRADO-MENDOZA, No. 19-72252 Petitioner, Agency No. A090-189-600 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Judge Submitted January 19, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Alfonso Prado-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction * 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). under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Prado-Mendoza failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico 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”). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Prado- Mendoza failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade- Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37 (CAT claim fails where the petitioner is unable to demonstrate torture was or would be inflicted by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity). In light of this disposition, we do not reach Prado-Mendoza’s remaining contention regarding relocation. 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). 2 19-72252 We do not consider the materials Prado-Mendoza references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Prado-Mendoza’s motion to take judicial notice is denied. See id. Prado-Mendoza’s stay of removal raised in Docket Entry No. 24 is denied as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-72252 19-72252 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Alfonso Prado-Mendoza v. Merrick Garland 25 January 2022 Agency Unpublished 34515ecd5023acbabd16d8ba928663931f5f6dfa
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals