Ociel Hernandez-Rodriguez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OCIEL HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-95
Agency No.
A075-193-874
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ociel Hernandez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) in reinstated removal proceedings. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, 694 F.3d
* 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
JUL 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-95
955, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2012). We review factual findings for substantial
evidence. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT deferral of removal
because Hernandez-Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not he would
be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture); Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047,
1054 (9th Cir. 2011) (country reports and credible testimony were insufficient
to compel conclusion that petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Hernandez-Rodriguez’s
remaining contentions as to the requisite state action for CAT protection. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --