Elder Benjamin Canut-Reyes v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELDER BENJAMIN CANUT-REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73264
Agency No. A071-581-897
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Elder Benjamin Canut-Reyes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal. 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,
* 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
DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-73264
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Canut-Reyes
failed to establish that his past harm rose to the level of persecution. See Lim v.
INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecution is an “extreme concept” that
includes the “infliction of suffering or harm”); Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d
1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (threats alone “rarely constitute persecution”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Canut-Reyes
failed to establish the harm he fears in Guatemala would be 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,
his withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Canut-Reyes’ 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.

-- 2 of 2 --