NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
ELEAZAR AGUIRRE-BOLIVAR, No. 19-70835
Petitioner, Agency No. A076-662-346
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.
Eleazar Aguirre-Bolivar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014).
We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Aguirre-Bolivar’s contentions regarding
political opinion and his religion claim that he did not raise 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); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931
(9th Cir. 2004) (the BIA’s use of the streamlined summary affirmance procedure
does not eliminate the exhaustion requirement).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Aguirre-
Bolivar failed to establish that the harm he suffered in Mexico was on account of a
protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An
alien’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.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Aguirre-Bolivar
failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Tamang
v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was
not objectively reasonable). Thus, Aguirre-Bolivar’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Aguirre-Bolivar’s remaining
contentions regarding his withholding of removal claim. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
2 19-70835
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 supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Aguirre-Bolivar 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 19-70835