Erick Francisco Menjivar- Hernandez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERICK FRANCISCO MENJIVAR-
HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72407
Agency No. A206-834-315
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 7, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: BYBEE and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,*** District
Judge.
Erick Menjivar-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
* 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).
*** The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for
the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
review of the Board of Immigration’s (“BIA”) denial of his petition for withholding
of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the
petition.
To show eligibility for withholding of removal, an applicant bears the burden
of proving that his “life or freedom would be threatened in th[e] country [of
removal] because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). “To succeed, an
applicant must show a ‘clear probability’ of persecution because of a protected
ground.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting INS v.
Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429–30 (1984)).
The BIA determined that Menjivar-Hernandez failed to show a nexus between
persecution and a statutorily protected ground. The BIA concluded that the gang
members who targeted Menjivar-Hernandez were motivated by a desire to obtain
money from him, not because of his actual or imputed political opinion or being a
male member of the Menjivar-Hernandez family. The record does not compel a
contrary conclusion. For example, Menjivar-Hernandez’s asylum application states
that he was being extorted because the gang members believed he was wealthy—not
because of his family membership or political opinion. Letters from his family
1 Menjivar-Hernandez did not meaningfully contest his asylum and
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claims before the BIA and so we do not
address them.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
members likewise do not mention any extortion tied to his family membership or
political affiliation. Moreover, Menjivar-Hernandez claims he will be targeted
because of his father’s political activity, but he admits that there is no evidence his
father was harmed by others. And there is no evidence that any other members of
his family were harmed. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
denial of withholding of removal.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Menjivar-Hernandez’s remaining
contentions regarding persecution. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th
Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they
reach).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --