NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADRIAN LAZARO GASPAR, No. 18-71571 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-121-722 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 2, 2020** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Adrian Lazaro Gaspar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial * 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). evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Lazaro Gaspar does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s denial of voluntary departure. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079- 80 (9th Cir. 2013). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lazaro Gaspar failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in Mexico would be 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”). Thus, Lazaro Gaspar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Lazaro Gaspar’s contention that his fear of future persecution is subjective genuine and objectively reasonable. 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 agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lazaro Gaspar 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 Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Lazaro Gaspar’s request to remand, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. 2 18-71571 See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to appear need not include time and date of hearing to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-71571 18-71571 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Adrian Lazaro Gaspar v. William Barr 9 June 2020 Agency Unpublished 0cc3bdad3c0f424532b6be2177e8acf223f7d2d3
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals