United States v. 2020-01-10 | 16-73965 | JONATHAN CORADO CASTILLO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN ALEXANDER CORADO
CASTILLO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-73965

Agency No. A206-681-387

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jonathan Alexander Corado Castillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”).

*
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

JAN 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 16-73965
We have jurisdiction under 8 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 deny the petition for review.
Corado Castillo does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s
dispositive conclusion that he failed to demonstrate that the harm he experienced
or fears was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for
review as to asylum and withholding of removal.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Corado Castillo’s remaining
contentions as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide
issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Corado Castillo failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.