Jose Manuel Palomino-Moreno v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MANUEL PALOMINO-MORENO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70061
Agency No. A200-630-228
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Palomino-Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70061
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Palomino-
Moreno 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”); 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”). To the extent Palomino-Moreno raises a
new particular social group in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider
the group because he failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Palomino-
Moreno’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). We do not address Palomino-Moreno’s contentions as to the timeliness of
his asylum application because the BIA did not deny relief on this ground. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70061
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing
the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Thus, Palomino-Moreno’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Because Palomino-Moreno does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT
protection, this issue is forfeited. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --