Helkin Usiel Gomez-Perez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HELKIN USIEL GOMEZ-PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1952
Agency No.
A205-320-454
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Helkin Usiel Gomez-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and 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
NOV 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1952
(“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 review de novo questions of law. Id. We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez-Perez
failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.
See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The applicant must
demonstrate a nexus between her past or feared harm and a protected ground.”)
(citation omitted); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”).
Thus, his asylum claim fails. Because Gomez-Perez failed to establish any nexus
at all, he also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Gomez-Perez’s remaining
contentions regarding the merits of his claims. 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
because Gomez-Perez 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 Guatemala.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1952
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Gomez-Perez’s request for remand to seek prosecutorial discretion is
denied. See Morales de Soto v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 822, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2016)
(government’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion not subject to judicial review,
and remand not warranted based on changes in agency policy).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --