Jorge Alexander Nunez; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE ALEXANDER NUNEZ; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1409
Agency Nos.
A209-162-351
A209-162-331
A209-162-330
A209-162-329
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Alexander Nunez, Zulma Carolina Salazar de Nunez, and their
children, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without opinion an immigration
judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
* 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
SEP 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1409
and protection under the Convention Against 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.
We do not disturb the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to
establish they suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner’s past experiences,
including two beatings, even considered cumulatively, did not compel a finding of
past persecution); see also Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review
applies, where result would be the same under either standard).
Because petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination that internal
relocation would be reasonable, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions regarding nexus or the cognizability of their proposed particular social
group. 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).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1409
because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be 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 temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --