Marta Lopez v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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