Reina Elizabet Lozano De Torres; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REINA ELIZABET LOZANO DE
TORRES; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-71007
Agency Nos. A208-884-980
A208-884-981
A208-170-988
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Reina Elizabet Lozano de Torres and her two sons, Josue and Imer, natives
and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
denying petitioners’ applications for asylum and denying Lozano de Torres’ and
* 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).
FILED
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-71007
Josue’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. 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 petitioners
failed to establish they were or 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,
petitioners’ asylum claims and Lozano de Torres’ and Josue’s withholding of
removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions regarding their asylum and withholding of removal claims. 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).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Lozano de Torres and Josue failed to show it is more likely than not they
would 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-71007
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --