Alfonso Prado-Mendoza v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFONSO PRADO-MENDOZA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72252
Agency No. A090-189-600
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration Judge
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Alfonso Prado-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a)
that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and thus
is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction
* 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
JAN 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-72252
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination
for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir.
2016). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Prado-Mendoza
failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico 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”).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Prado-
Mendoza failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-
Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37 (CAT claim fails where the petitioner is unable to
demonstrate torture was or would be inflicted by, at the instigation of, or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official
capacity). In light of this disposition, we do not reach Prado-Mendoza’s remaining
contention regarding relocation. 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 19-72252
We do not consider the materials Prado-Mendoza references in his opening
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Prado-Mendoza’s motion to take judicial notice is denied. See id.
Prado-Mendoza’s stay of removal raised in Docket Entry No. 24 is denied as
moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --