NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL DIAZ, AKA Diego Morales, No. 15-73660
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-246-098
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ orders 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”). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
*
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).
factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Diaz’s due process claims because he failed
to raise them to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Diaz failed to
demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears in Mexico and 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”). Thus, Diaz’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Diaz’s remaining particular
social group contentions. 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
Diaz failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
2 15-73660
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture established).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 15-73660