NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTA ENA LOPEZ, No. 15-72449 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-515-800 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 17, 2022** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Marta Ena Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez failed to establish that the Salvadoran government was or would be unable or unwilling to protect her from the persecution she fears. See Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (record did not compel the conclusion that the government was unable or unwilling to control the individuals feared); see also Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (“To reverse the BIA, we must determine that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it . . . .” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, Lopez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this disposition, we do not reach Lopez’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of her asylum and withholding of removal claims. 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 supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lopez 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 El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 15-72449 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-72449 15-72449 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Marta Lopez v. Merrick Garland 20 May 2022 Agency Unpublished 0fd5d728d23b38acec64990c29a32eccc2c209f4
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals