Samuel Guerrero Verdeja v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL GUERRERO VERDEJA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 13-72958
14-70397
Agency No. A046-615-804
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Guerrero Verdeja, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (No. 13-72958), and of the BIA’s order
FILED
MAR 07 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Thus, we deny Guerrero
Verdeja’s request for oral argument.

-- 1 of 3 --

denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings (No. 14-70397). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008),
and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petitions for review.
As to petition No. 13-72958, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
dispositive finding that, even if Guerrero Verdeja was credible, he failed to
establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See
Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. We reject Guerrero Verdeja’s contentions that the BIA
failed to consider relevant evidence or sufficiently consider his claim. See
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently
announced its decision). Thus, Guerrero Verdeja’s CAT claim fails.
As to petition No. 14-70397, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Guerrero Verdeja’s motion to reopen because his new evidence did not address the
agency’s conclusion that he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would
be tortured in Mexico. See id. at 986 (the court “defer[s] to the BIA’s exercise of
discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”). We reject
Guerrero Verdeja’s contention that the BIA erred by not addressing his arguments
based on this court’s decision in Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.
13-72958/14-70397 2

-- 2 of 3 --

2013). See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general
rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of
which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”) (internal quotation and citation
omitted).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-72958/14-70397 3

-- 3 of 3 --