Marta Mercado Moran v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTA DEL CARMEN MERCADO No. 20-72369
MORAN; et al.,
Agency Nos. A202-120-132
Petitioners, A202-120-133
A202-120-134
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Marta Del Carmen Mercado Moran and her sons, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 petitioners
failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must
provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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 light of this disposition, we need not
reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding the cognizability of their
proposed particular social groups. 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). We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to whether
the harm they suffered rose to the level of persecution because the BIA did not
deny relief on this ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829
(9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the
grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
2 20-72369
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT protection because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-72369