JUAN LUIS CASTRO MIL, AKA Luis Castro v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN LUIS CASTRO MIL, AKA Luis
Castro,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71896
Agency No. A205-907-498
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Luis Castro Mil, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
* 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
MAY 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-71896
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo whether a
petitioner has been afforded due process. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614,
620 (9th Cir. 2006). 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Castro Mil failed
to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that 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”); see also
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017) (observing that
there is no need to distinguish between the “one central reason” standard for
asylum and the “a reason” standard for withholding of removal when there is no
nexus to a protected ground). Thus, Castro Mil’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
The BIA did not err in deeming Castro Mil’s CAT claim waived. See
Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A review of
[Petitioner’s] brief to the BIA confirms that he did not argue that he was entitled to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-71896
relief under the CAT.”). Castro Mil’s brief made no mention of torture and
otherwise gave the BIA no reason to suspect that Castro Mil was challenging the
IJ’s denial of CAT protection.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Castro Mil’s remaining
contentions. 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.” (quoting INS v.
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976))).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --