Turbin-Saldana v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CESAR ARTURO TURBIN-SALDANA, No. 22-1848 Agency No. Petitioner, A208-759-941 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 12, 2023** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Cesar Arturo Turbin-Saldana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se 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 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”). 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 determination that Turbin- Saldana did not establish that the government of El Salvador was or is unable or unwilling to control the agents of any past or feared persecution. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel finding that government was unwilling or unable to control the feared harm). Thus, Turbin-Saldana’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Turbin-Saldana’s remaining contentions regarding his proposed particular social groups or nexus. 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 protection because Turbin-Saldana 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 El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 22-1848 22-1848 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Turbin-Saldana v. Garland 25 September 2023 Unpublished 06692436e714e5f62640fd714e5c5ef99af0e8b5

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