Rosa Rodriguez-Cortez v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA MARIA RODRIGUEZ-CORTEZ, No. 21-70734
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-165-686
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Rosa Maria Rodriguez-Cortez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“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.
We do not disturb the agency’s determination that Rodriguez-Cortez failed
to establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Mendez-
Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 869 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (unspecified threats
were insufficient to rise to the level of persecution); see also Flores Molina v.
Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de
novo or substantial evidence review applies, where result would be the same under
either standard). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that
Rodriguez-Cortez failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution.
See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future
persecution “too speculative”).
Because Rodriguez-Cortez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she
failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez v.
Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021). Thus, Rodriguez-Cortez’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Rodriguez-Cortez’s remaining
contentions regarding nexus and her proposed particular social groups. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are
2 21-70734
not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Rodriguez-Cortez 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 21-70734