NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALVARO MARROQUIN MACIEL, No. 18-72236
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-912-566
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Alvaro Marroquin Maciel, a 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
*
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, Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Marroquin Maciel
failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be
on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th
Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an
applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his
membership in such group” (emphasis in original)); 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, Marroquin Maciel’s asylum and withholding
claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Marroquin Maciel’s remaining
contentions as to asylum and withholding. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts . . . are not required to make
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”
(citation omitted)).
2 18-72236
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Marroquin Maciel 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 Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian, 755
F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state
action for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-72236