eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-10

Kenia Gomez-Caballero v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 30 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENIA YAMILETH GOMEZ-                            No.   20-70053
CABALLERO,
Agency No. A215-819-004
Petitioner,
v.                                              MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 26, 2020**
Before:      McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Kenia Yamileth Gomez-Caballero, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
    453 F.3d 1182
    , 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez-
Caballero failed to establish that the Salvadoran government was or would be
unable or unwilling to control the gang members who threatened her. See Castro-
Perez v. Gonzales,
    409 F.3d 1069
    , 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel
conclusion that the government was unable or unwilling to control persecutors).
Thus, Gomez-Caballero’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Gomez-Caballero’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 also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Gomez-Caballero failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or
with the consent of acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Garcia-Milian v. Holder,
    755 F.3d 1026
    , 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that
petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).
As stated in the court’s April 23, 2020 order, the stay of removal remains in
place until issuance of the mandate.
2                                  20-70053
Gomez-Caballero’s request for a bond hearing (Docket Entry No. 18) is
denied because this court does not adjudicate bond or custody status through a
petition for review. See Leonardo v. Crawford,
    646 F.3d 1157
    , 1160 (9th Cir.
2011) (eligible detainees may seek a bond hearing from an immigration judge,
appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and then seek review of the
determination by filing a habeas corpus petition in district court). Gomez-
Caballero’s alternative request (Docket Entry No. 18) for transfer to a detention
center in California is denied for similar reasons; Gomez-Caballero points to no
legal authority for this court to entertain a transfer request on a petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3                                     20-70053