Catarino Arrezola Sanchez v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CATARINO ARREZOLA SANCHEZ, Nos. 19-72577
20-71059
Petitioner,
Agency No. A096-477-529
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Catarino Arrezola Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(petition No. 19-72577), and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider and
terminate proceedings (petition No. 20-71059). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
As to petition No. 19-72577, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Arrezola Sanchez failed to establish he was or would be
persecuted on account of a protected ground, including membership in a family-
based social group. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011)
(even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must
still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group”); 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”). In his opening
brief, Arrezola Sanchez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination
that his returnee-based social group was not cognizable. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, Arrezola Sanchez’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail.
2 19-72577
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Arrezola Sanchez’s remaining
contentions regarding the merits of his 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 also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Arrezola Sanchez 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).
We reject as unsupported by the record Arrezola Sanchez’s contentions that
the agency applied incorrect legal standards and ignored evidence in deciding his
claims.
As to petition No. 20-71059, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Arrezola Sanchez’s motion to reconsider and terminate, where his contention that
the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by
Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he lack of time,
date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration
court of jurisdiction over her case.”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-72577