Cristina Valle-Cervantes v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISTINA VALLE-CERVANTES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1846
Agency No.
A087-953-907
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Cristina Valle-Cervantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
* 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
NOV 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1846
removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
cancellation of removal. 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 Valle-
Cervantes failed to establish she 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”); Barajas-
Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, Valle-Cervantes’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Valle-Cervantes’s remaining
contentions regarding the merits of her withholding claim. 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 Valle-Cervantes failed to show it is more likely than not she will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider the materials Valle-Cervantes references in her opening

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1846
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --