NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 10 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO GONZALEZ SALMERON, No. 20-70474
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-711-423
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Armando Gonzalez Salmeron, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”).1
We have 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 conclusion that Gonzalez
Salmeron failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of
a protected ground.2 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, Gonzalez Salmeron’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Gonzalez Salmeron 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).
1
Gonzalez Salmeron does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum
application.
2
Because Gonzalez Salmeron’s failure to demonstrate a nexus to a protected
ground is dispositive, we do not reach his contention that the BIA failed to
adequately analyze his particular social group arguments. “As a general rule courts
and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results they reach.” Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538
(9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted).
2 20-70474
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-70474