Martha Patricia Pimentel Ortiz; v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA PATRICIA PIMENTEL ORTIZ;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73288
Agency Nos. A208-602-133
A208-602-134
A208-602-135
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2019 **
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Martha Patricia Pimentel Ortiz, and her two minor children, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under
* 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 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-73288
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 their past experiences in Mexico rose to the level of
persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003)
(persecution is “an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment
our society regards as offensive” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish that any harm they fear in Mexico would be on account of a
protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”
(emphasis in original)); 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.”). 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-73288
reach). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --