From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andres v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 18, 2019
No. 18-72574 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019)

Opinion

No. 18-72574

12-18-2019

GERVACIA NICOLAS ANDRES; et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency Nos. A208-598-598 A208-598-599 A208-598-600 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Gervacia Nicolas Andres, and her two minor children, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that petitioners failed to establish that the harm they suffered or fear in Guatemala was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that "persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group"); see also 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, petitioners' asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT relief).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners' remaining contentions. 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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Andres v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 18, 2019
No. 18-72574 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019)
Case details for

Andres v. Barr

Case Details

Full title:GERVACIA NICOLAS ANDRES; et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 18, 2019

Citations

No. 18-72574 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019)