NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDGAR ELIAS CRUZ, No. 19-71227 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-825-316 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Edgar Elias Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. * 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). Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Elias Cruz failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or 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, Elias Cruz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this dispositive disposition, we need not reach Elias Cruz’s contentions regarding his proposed 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 agency’s denial of CAT relief because Elias Cruz 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); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in petitioner’s home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief). 2 19-71227 Elias Cruz’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is denied as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 19-71227 19-71227 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Edgar Cruz v. William Barr 12 February 2020 Agency Unpublished 8487164f6e9d0499dec13b57ac823d1ab36b9247
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals