NELSON REYES CALZADA, AKA Nelson Roberto Ramos-Reyes v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON REYES CALZADA, AKA
Nelson Roberto Ramos-Reyes,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73322
Agency No. A078-961-950
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.
Nelson Reyes Calzada, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
* 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 3 --

2 15-73322
jurisdiction is governed under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070
(9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Calzada’s contentions as to the social group
he raises for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented
to the agency).
Calzada does not contend the BIA erred in finding that his social group of
mistaken rival gang members was not cognizable. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder,
718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief
resulted in waiver). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Calzada failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in
El Salvador and 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, Calzada’s withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Calzada’s 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-73322
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Calzada failed to show it is more likely than not that he 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --