Jose Manuel Arreaza Galindo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MANUEL ARREAZA GALINDO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70508
Agency No. A206-776-510
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Arreaza Galindo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-70508
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
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 determination that Arreaza
Galindo failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a
protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see
also 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”). In light of this disposition,
we need not reach Arreaza Galindo’s remaining contentions regarding his claims
for asylum and withholding of removal. 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, Arreaza Galindo’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Arreaza Galindo 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-70508
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --