Marvin Moran v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARVIN GIOVANNY MORAN, No. 16-73206
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-321-869
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Marvin Giovanny Moran, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
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 the harm
Moran experienced in El Salvador did not rise to the level of persecution. See
Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (persecution is an
extreme concept); see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.
2009) (cumulative experiences did not compel finding of past persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Moran did not
establish a clear probability of future persecution in El Salvador. See Lanza v.
Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner’s evidence did not show
clear probability of future persecution).
We do not consider Moran’s pattern or practice and disfavored group claims
because the BIA did not decide the issues, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657
F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA),
and Moran does not contend the BIA erred in finding that his pattern or practice
and disfavored group claims were not properly before it, see Corro-Barragan v.
Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening
brief resulted in waiver).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Moran’s remaining contentions
2 16-73206
as to his eligibility for withholding of removal. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary
to the results they reach).
Thus, Moran’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Moran failed to show that it is more likely than not he would 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 issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-73206