Ana Guadalupe Landaverde- Morales v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA GUADALUPE LANDAVERDE-
MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70766
Agency No. A206-722-187
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.
Ana Guadalupe Landaverde-Morales, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
* 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 21-70766
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v.
Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Landaverde-
Morales failed to establish the harm she experienced or fears in El Salvador was or
would be motivated by a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095,
1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is
established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on
account of his membership in such group”); 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, Landaverde-Morales’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Landaverde-Morales’s remaining
contentions regarding her asylum and withholding of removal claims. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because
Landaverde-Morales failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-70766
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Landaverde-Morales’s contentions
that the BIA failed to sufficiently explain its decision, applied an incorrect
standard, or otherwise erred in its analysis.
Landaverde-Morales’s request for remand is denied. See Morales de Soto v.
Lynch, 824 F.3d 822, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2016) (government’s exercise of
prosecutorial discretion not subject to judicial review, and remand not warranted
based on changes in policy).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --