NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS ROBERT CRUZ, No. 15-73811 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-747-476 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 18, 2019** San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO,*** District Judge. Carlos Robert Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s order dismissing his appeal from an * 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). *** The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s decision finding him ineligible for withholding of removal and denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s determination that a petitioner’s past conviction constituted a “particularly serious crime” rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal. Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for substantial evidence the denial of CAT relief. Id. at 1127. We deny the petition for review. 1. The agency did not abuse its discretion in concluding that, under the circumstances here, Cruz’s conviction for carrying a loaded stolen firearm in public under California Penal Code § 12031(a)(1) with an enhancement for street gang activity pursuant to California Penal Code § 186.22(a) was a particularly serious crime, rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); Konou, 750 F.3d at 1126–27 (listing factors to consider in determining whether a crime is particularly serious and finding no abuse of discretion in that determination); see also Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[N]o Ninth Circuit decision [holds that the BIA can make the ‘particularly serious crime’ determination based solely on the elements of the offense] and our considered analysis of the statute at issue compels a contrary conclusion.”). Because the particularly serious crime determination is dispositive, we do not, and the BIA was not required to, address Cruz’s other contentions 2 15-73811 regarding eligibility for withholding of removal. 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. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of protection under CAT, where the evidence shows only the general possibility of torture, and not a likelihood that Cruz will be targeted for harm. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that general reports indicating torture occurs in a petitioner’s home country do not compel conclusion a particular petitioner will be targeted); see also Arbid v. Holder, 700 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals