NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 12 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE HERNANDEZ-MORALES, No. 15-72228 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-149-703 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 17, 2019 Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BURY,** District Judge. Jose Hernandez-Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable David C. Bury, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review. The agency found that Hernandez-Morales’s asylum claim was time-barred and that he did not qualify for an exception to the one-year deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). During oral argument, Hernandez-Morales, through counsel, conceded that his asylum application was time-barred and declined to challenge the agency’s dispositive determination. Thus, Hernandez-Morales’s asylum claim fails. As to withholding of removal, Hernandez-Morales fears harm from drug traffickers in Mexico based on his prior service in the Mexican Army and the anti- drug trafficking work he conducted during that service. He advanced two protected grounds as the basis for his withholding of removal claim: (1) the proposed particular social group of “former military service members who worked in the investigation of illegal drugs,” and (2) an imputed political opinion opposing drug trafficking. Contrary to Hernandez-Morales’s contention, the BIA did not violate his due process rights by not addressing whether he established a well-founded fear of 2 persecution, because the BIA was not required to reach issues unnecessary to its dispositive determination on his withholding of removal claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring a showing of error to prevail on a due process claim); see also Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538 (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez- Morales failed to establish that any harm he had experienced or would experience in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected ground. The record shows that during the time Hernandez-Morales lived in Mexico, and during his later visits to Mexico from the United States, he never experienced personal contact, physical harm, or threats from drug traffickers, and he was never the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals