REY DAVID CABRERA-PUAC, AKA David Cabrera, AKA Rey David Cabrera, AKA Cabrera David… v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REY DAVID CABRERA-PUAC, AKA
David Cabrera, AKA Rey David Cabrera,
AKA Cabrera David Estrada,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70904
Agency No. A206-407-210
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rey David Cabrera-Puac, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
* 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
JUN 10 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70904
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).1
We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Cabrera-Puac
failed to demonstrate past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution
on account of a protected ground.2 See, e.g., 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.”) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted); 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, Cabrera-Puac’s withholding of removal claim fails.
1 Cabrera-Puac does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum application as
untimely.
2 Because Cabrera-Puac’s failure to demonstrate a nexus to a protected ground is
dispositive, we do not reach his argument that he belongs to a cognizable particular
social group. “As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70904
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Cabrera-Puac failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --