NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFONSO ORTIZ CRUZ, No. 19-72177
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-022-864
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Alfonso Ortiz Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.
2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ortiz Cruz’s
past harm did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399
F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2005) (persecution is an extreme concept); see also
Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (evidence of threats
did not compel the conclusion that petitioner suffered past persecution); Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s past experiences,
including two beatings, even considered cumulatively, did not compel a finding of
past persecution). We reject as unsupported by the record Ortiz Cruz’s contentions
that the agency erred in its rise to the level determination.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Ortiz
Cruz did not establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See
Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2004) (no clear probability of
future persecution).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Ortiz Cruz’s contentions
concerning nexus and cognizability, including whether the IJ made erroneous
factual findings, or that the agency applied an incorrect nexus standard. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are
2 19-72177
not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). We also need
not reach Ortiz Cruz’s contention that the BIA erred in failing to make a relocation
finding. Id.
Thus, Ortiz Cruz’s withholding of removal claim fails.
In his counseled opening brief, Ortiz Cruz does not challenge the agency’s
denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th
Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-72177
Alfonso Ortiz Cruz v. Merrick Garland
Combined Opinion