NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEOCADIA MAGANA-MENDOZA, No. 19-70516 Petitioner, Agency No. A096-342-951 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Leocadia Magana-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual * 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). findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Magana-Mendoza failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See id. at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief). We reject Magana-Mendoza’s contentions that the agency failed to consider the country conditions evidence or otherwise erred in its legal analysis. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Magana-Mendoza’s contentions regarding the agency’s adverse credibility findings. 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 19-70516 19-70516 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Leocadia Magana-Mendoza v. William Barr 10 April 2020 Agency Unpublished b317f75b3366a078087195bb073bb3d840e0509a
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals