VALENDO FELIPE LOPEZ-DIAZ, AKA Valendo Lopez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VALENDO FELIPE LOPEZ-DIAZ, AKA
Valendo Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70712
Agency No. A087-902-174
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Valendo Felipe Lopez-Diaz1, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
* 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).
1 In petitioner’s testimony before the immigration judge and in his
Opening Brief, he asserts that his true name is Galindo Felipe Lopez Quiej.
FILED
MAY 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-70712
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
We deny the petition for review.
We reject Lopez-Diaz’s argument that the IJ lacked jurisdiction or otherwise
erred by denying his asylum application on the merits without first determining
whether the application was time barred. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.14(a),
1240.1(a)(ii); see also Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538 (courts and agencies are not
required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Lopez-Diaz
failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.
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, Lopez-Diaz’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-70712
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Lopez-Diaz 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --