United States v. 2020-06-08 | 17-72345 | MANUEL PAZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANUEL ALFONSO PAZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-72345

Agency No. A073-914-628

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Manuel Alfonso Paz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey,

*
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

JUN 8 2020

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

2 17-72345
512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to
the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Paz did not establish membership in a
cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th
Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he
applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a
common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially
distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N.
Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Paz’s withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Paz’s contentions regarding
nexus, the severity of his past harm, or the likelihood of future harm in El
Salvador. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538 (courts and agencies are not required to
decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Paz
failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent
or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder,

3 17-72345
589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.