Opinion
19-73001
06-10-2022
DOMINGO PASQUAL-GASPAR, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted June 2, 2022 [**]
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A071-639-629
Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Domingo Pasqual-Gaspar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT").
Pasqual-Gaspar does not challenge the agency's denial of his application for cancellation of removal.
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 conclusion that Pasqual-Gaspar failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. 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"). Thus, Pasqual-Gaspar's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Because Pasqual-Gaspar's failure to demonstrate a nexus to a protected ground is dispositive, we do not reach his argument that he belongs to a particular social group. "As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach." Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT protection because Pasqual-Gaspar failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
To the extent that Pasqual-Gaspar asserts that the agency violated his due process rights by mischaracterizing evidence, we reject that assertion because the record indicates that Pasqual-Gaspar received a full and fair hearing. See, e.g., Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) ("A court will grant a petition on due process grounds only if the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the [applicant] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[*] 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).