HEIDI AJOAEO-SOLANO, AKA Heidi Aguayo-Solano v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HEIDI AJOAEO-SOLANO, AKA Heidi
Aguayo-Solano,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70936
Agency No. A201-281-299
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, BADE, Circuit Judges
Heidi Ajoaeo-Solano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
* 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
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70936
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 review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal
because Ajoaeo-Solano failed to show a clear probability of future persecution.
See, e.g., Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (feared persecution
“too speculative” to support claim). The BIA did not err in reviewing the IJ’s
factual findings for clear error. See Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1063–64 (9th
Cir. 2013); Matter of Z-Z-O-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 586, 590 (BIA 2015) (“[A]n
Immigration Judge’s predictive findings of what may or may not occur in the
future are findings of fact, which are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of
review.”).
The agency did not err by declining to reach Ajoaeo-Solano’s membership
in her proposed particular social group. 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). Thus, Ajoaeo-Solano’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Ajoaeo-Solano failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70936
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 reject as
unsupported by the record Ajoaeo-Solano’s contention that the agency failed to
consider all of the evidence or otherwise erred in its CAT analysis. See Cole v.
Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --