Juan Alonso Teran Soto v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ALONSO TERAN SOTO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73421
Agency No. A087-991-562
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Alonso Teran Soto, 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 asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and from the
BIA’s order denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8
* 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
NOV 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-73421
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 review the
BIA’s denial of a motion to remand for abuse of discretion. Romero-Ruiz v.
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Teran Soto established
changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Teran Soto’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Teran Soto
failed to establish that the harm he fears in Mexico will be on account of 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,
Teran Soto’s withholding of removal claim fails. In light of this disposition, we do
not reach Teran Soto’s arguments concerning internal relocation. 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-73421
In his opening brief, Teran Soto fails to challenge the agency’s denial of
CAT relief. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir.
2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Teran Soto’s motion to
remand to apply for cancellation of removal because he failed to establish prima
facie eligibility for relief. See Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2015)
(“Since a motion to remand is so similar to a motion to reopen, the motion to
remand should be drafted in conformity with regulations pertinent to motions to
reopen.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)
(a motion to reopen to apply for relief must be accompanied by an application and
all supporting documentation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --