NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR ELIAS CRUZ, No. 19-71227
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-825-316
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2020**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Elias Cruz, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
*
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).
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Elias Cruz
failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of
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,
Elias Cruz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this
dispositive disposition, we need not reach Elias Cruz’s contentions regarding his
proposed social group. 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
Elias Cruz 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 Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,
600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime
in petitioner’s home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT relief).
2 19-71227
Elias Cruz’s motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is denied as
moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-71227
Edgar Cruz v. William Barr
Combined Opinion