Israel Castro Valdez; Sandra Cornejo Rodriguez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISRAEL CASTRO VALDEZ; SANDRA
CORNEJO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71745
Agency Nos. A089-245-835
A089-245-836
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Israel Castro Valdez and Sandra Cornejo Rodriguez, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against
* 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
MAR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-71745
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and we review de novo questions
of law. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish that the harm they experienced or fear was or will be 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 Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute,
standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground).
Thus, petitioners’ withholding of removal claims fail.
In their counseled opening brief, petitioners do not contend the BIA erred in
finding the proposed social group they raised in the first instance on appeal was not
properly before it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.
2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived). In
light of the waiver of this dispositive determination, we need not reach petitioners’
contentions as to the merits of the proposed 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). Petitioners’ related claim
that the BIA violated their right to due process fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-71745
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error is required to prevail on a due process claim).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show that it is more likely than not that they will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative).
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --