Valendo Lopez-Diaz v. Merrick Garland


NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VALENDO FELIPE LOPEZ-DIAZ, AKA No. 15-70712 Valendo Lopez, Agency No. A087-902-174 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 17, 2022** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Valendo Felipe Lopez-Diaz1, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal * 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). 1 In petitioner’s testimony before the immigration judge and in his Opening Brief, he asserts that his true name is Galindo Felipe Lopez Quiej. from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). 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. We reject Lopez-Diaz’s argument that the IJ lacked jurisdiction or otherwise erred by denying his asylum application on the merits without first determining whether the application was time barred. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.14(a), 1240.1(a)(ii); see also Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538 (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Lopez-Diaz failed to establish that he would be persecuted 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, Lopez-Diaz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 2 15-70712 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Lopez-Diaz 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 Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-70712 15-70712 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Valendo Lopez-Diaz v. Merrick Garland 20 May 2022 Agency Unpublished d60f8e0e2b4b487e7324aaf1dcead96f4df2ba74

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals