Jose Mario Guevara v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MARIO GUEVARA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1403
Agency No.
A209-844-520
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Mario Guevara, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without
opinion an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* 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
AUG 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-1403
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 Guevara
failed to establish he was persecuted in the past 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”); 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”). Because Guevara does not
challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish his future fear is
objectively reasonable, we do not reach it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706
F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, his asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Guevara’s remaining
contentions regarding whether the harm he suffered constituted persecution.
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).
Because Guevara does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT
protection, we do not reach it. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --