Angela Silverio Julian v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELA SILVERIO JULIAN,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72520
Agency No. A208-122-883
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Angela Silverio Julian, 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 application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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
AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-72520
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that any harm
Silverio Julian experienced or fears in Mexico has no nexus to 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, Silverio
Julian’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Silverio Julian failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured 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).
Because these determinations are dispositive, we need not reach Silverio
Julian’s remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to decide issues
unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation omitted)).
We deny Silverio Julian’s request for judicial notice as set forth in her

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-72520
opening brief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --