Ana Victoria Rojas Portillo; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANA VICTORIA ROJAS PORTILLO; et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-2058
Agency Nos.
A209-979-538
A209-979-537
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.
Ana Victoria Rojas Portillo and her minor child, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
* 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 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-2058
their 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 de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived
challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determinations that they failed to establish past
persecution, nexus to a protected ground, or a well-founded fear of future
persecution, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’
remaining contentions regarding whether the past harm rose to the level of
persecution, or whether the proposed particular social groups of “members of the
Rojas-Portillo family” and “witnesses to criminal activity in El Salvador” are
cognizable. 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, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived
challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address 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 --