NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISMAEL SANCHEZ OVIEDO, AKA No. 19-71054
Ismael Sanchezoviedo,
Agency No. A200-244-471
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 9, 2020**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ismael Sanchez Oviedo, 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 application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Sanchez
Oviedo failed to establish the harm he suffered or fears in Mexico 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”). Because this determination is dispositive of his withholding of
removal claim, we do not address Sanchez Oviedo’s remaining contentions. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts are not
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the
results).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Sanchez Oviedo failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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).
As stated in the court’s June 14, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 19-71054