Jose Manuel Lopez Moreno v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MANUEL LOPEZ MORENO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1757
Agency No.
A205-711-176
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2023**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Lopez Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
OCT 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1757
(“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. 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.
Because Lopez Moreno does not contest the agency’s determination that he
waived challenge to the asylum and cancellation of removal denials, we do not
address them. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.
2013).
Lopez Moreno also does not challenge the agency’s dispositive
determination that he failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a
protected ground. See id. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Lopez
Moreno’s withholding of removal claim.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Lopez Moreno’s remaining
contentions regarding the merits of his withholding of removal claim. 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 supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Lopez Moreno failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.
See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1757
too speculative).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --