Loren Aleli Orozco- Dominguez; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOREN ALELI OROZCO-
DOMINGUEZ; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-126
Agency Nos.
A201-538-926
A201-538-927
A201-538-928
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Loren Aleli Orozco-Dominguez and her two minor children, natives and
citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
* 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
SEP 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-126
denying their application for asylum, and denying Orozco-Dominguez’s
applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.
Because the opening brief does not challenge the agency’s dispositive
adverse credibility determination, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, we deny the petition for
review as to petitioners’ asylum claim and Orozco-Dominguez’s withholding of
removal claim. In light of this disposition, we need not reach the remaining
contentions regarding the merits of the 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 agency’s denial of Orozco-Dominguez’s
request for CAT protection because, even if credible, she 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 Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047
(9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --