NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL AGUILAR PEREZ, No. 18-70474
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-445-465
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 8, 2020**
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Aguilar Perez, 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 application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 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).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Aguilar Perez
failed to establish that the harm he suffered or fears in Guatemala 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”); 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.”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Aguilar Perez’s contentions regarding
a pattern and practice of persecution. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-
78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the
agency). Thus, Aguilar Perez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Aguilar Perez’s remaining
contentions regarding his withholding of removal claim. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide
2 18-70474
issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Aguilar Perez 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. See
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 in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 18-70474