Isabel Sabina Osorio Francisco v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISABEL SABINA OSORIO FRANCISCO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70559
Agency No. A208-601-128
MEMORANDUM*
VALERIO GONZALEZ OSORIO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70561
Agency No. A208-601-129
LESLY ISABEL GONZALEZ OSORIO,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 19-70563
Agency No. A208-601-130
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
JUN 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 19-70559
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Isabel Sabina Osorio Francisco, Valerio Gonzalez Osorio, and Lesly Isabel
Gonzalez Osorio, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Petitioners also seek review of the BIA’s order denying their motion to
terminate proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo questions of law.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 4 --

3 19-70559
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the petitioners
failed to establish that any persecution would be on account of a protected ground.1
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, the petitioners’
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because the petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they 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).
Petitioners contend that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over their proceedings.
This argument is foreclosed. Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.
2020) (“[A]n initial NTA need not contain time, date, and place information to vest
an immigration court with jurisdiction if such information is provided before the
hearing.”).
1 Because the petitioners’ failure to demonstrate a nexus to a protected ground is
dispositive, we do not reach their arguments concerning their proposed 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).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 19-70559
Contrary to the petitioners’ assertions that the agency violated their due
process rights, the record indicates that the petitioners received a full and fair
hearing. See, e.g., Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir.
2018) (“There is no indication that the IJ or BIA did not consider all the evidence
before them.”); Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A court
will grant a petition on due process grounds only if the proceeding was so
fundamentally unfair that the [applicant] was prevented from reasonably presenting
his case.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --