NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ROBERT CRUZ, No. 15-73811
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-747-476
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO,*** District
Judge.
Carlos Robert Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeal’s order dismissing his appeal from an
*
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).
***
The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
immigration judge’s decision finding him ineligible for withholding of removal
and denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
agency’s determination that a petitioner’s past conviction constituted a
“particularly serious crime” rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal.
Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for substantial
evidence the denial of CAT relief. Id. at 1127. We deny the petition for review.
1. The agency did not abuse its discretion in concluding that, under the
circumstances here, Cruz’s conviction for carrying a loaded stolen firearm in
public under California Penal Code § 12031(a)(1) with an enhancement for street
gang activity pursuant to California Penal Code § 186.22(a) was a particularly
serious crime, rendering him ineligible for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); Konou, 750 F.3d at 1126–27 (listing factors to consider in
determining whether a crime is particularly serious and finding no abuse of
discretion in that determination); see also Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d
1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[N]o Ninth Circuit decision [holds that the BIA can
make the ‘particularly serious crime’ determination based solely on the elements of
the offense] and our considered analysis of the statute at issue compels a contrary
conclusion.”). Because the particularly serious crime determination is dispositive,
we do not, and the BIA was not required to, address Cruz’s other contentions
2 15-73811
regarding eligibility for withholding of removal. 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).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of protection under CAT,
where the evidence shows only the general possibility of torture, and not a
likelihood that Cruz will be targeted for harm. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457
F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that general reports indicating torture
occurs in a petitioner’s home country do not compel conclusion a particular
petitioner will be targeted); see also Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 385–86 (9th
Cir. 2012) (recognizing that to reverse the agency’s factual findings when
reviewing for substantial evidence, the record must compel a contrary conclusion).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-73811