Joel Rivera-Huerta v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL RIVERA-HUERTA, No. 16-72906
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-648-506
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Joel Rivera-Huerta, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
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 Rivera-Huerta
failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on
account of a protected ground. See 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”);
see also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal
dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected
ground). Thus, Rivera-Huerta’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Rivera-Huerta’s remaining
contentions regarding his 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
Rivera-Huerta did not establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.
See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
2 16-72906
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-72906