Mariela Moreno Villalta v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIELA MORENO VILLALTA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1555
Agency No.
A215-764-885
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.
Mariela Moreno Villalta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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 factual
* 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 22-1555
findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241
(9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Because Moreno Villalta does not challenge the agency’s determination
that she failed to establish the Salvadoran government is unwilling or unable to
protect her, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). As this determination is dispositive of her asylum and
withholding of removal claims, we need not address Moreno Villalta’s
remaining contentions. 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Moreno Villalta failed to show it is more likely than not she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
El Salvador. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir.
2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for
CAT relief).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --