Alfonso Monjaras Mazariegos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFONSO MONJARAS MAZARIEGOS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1916
Agency No.
A215-581-011
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2023**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Alfonso Monjaras Mazariegos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for
asylum and withholding of removal, and granting him protection under the
* 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 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1916
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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.
Although Monjaras Mazariegos contends that the BIA erred by denying him
withholding of removal under CAT, this contention is misplaced. The IJ granted
withholding of removal under CAT, the Department of Homeland Security
withdrew its appeal to the BIA with respect to the grant of CAT protection, and the
BIA did not disturb the IJ’s determination. Therefore, the IJ’s grant of withholding
of removal under CAT remains in place.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Monjaras
Mazariegos failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a
protected ground. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021)
(“The applicant must demonstrate a nexus between her past or feared harm and a
protected ground.”) (citation omitted); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.
478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial”). Thus, his asylum claim fails. Because Monjaras Mazariegos
failed to establish any nexus at all, he also failed to satisfy the standard for
withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th
Cir. 2017).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1916
We do not address Monjaras Mazariegos’s contentions as to whether the
harm suffered rose to the level of persecution and the cognizability of the proposed
particular social groups because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing
the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --