Kevin Alonso Hernandez Mena v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN ALONSO HERNANDEZ MENA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72292
Agency No. A208-900-714
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Kevin Alonso Hernandez Mena, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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
FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72292
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947
F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez
Mena failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must
provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); Ayala v. Holder, 640
F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is
established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on
account of his membership in such group”); 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”). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Hernandez
Mena’s remaining contentions regarding his applications for asylum and
withholding of removal. 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). Thus, Hernandez Mena’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Hernandez Mena failed to show it is more likely than not he will be

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72292
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).
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --