Jose Jesus Garcia Menera v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE JESUS GARCIA MENERA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71477
Agency No. A095-789-211
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Jose Jesus Garcia Menera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal,
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal.
* 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
OCT 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-71477
Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia
Menera failed to establish the harm he fears 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 need not reach Garcia Menera’s remaining
contentions regarding his withholding of removal 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 relief because
Garcia Menera failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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 lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Garcia Menera did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-71477
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
The petition does not raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim over which we
retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at
930.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --