Juan Manuel Miranda-Soto v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MANUEL MIRANDA-SOTO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
Nos. 23-678
23-1235
Agency No.
A207-694-807
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Juan Manuel Miranda-Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order affirming an asylum officer’s
negative reasonable fear determination (petition No. 23-678), and the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an IJ’s denial of his motion to
* 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
JAN 24 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-678
reopen (petition No. 23-1235). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s reasonable fear determination.
Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). We review for abuse
of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petitions for review.
As to petition No. 23-678, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Miranda-Soto failed to show a reasonable possibility that the
harm he fears would be on account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v.
Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018) (record did not compel conclusion that
petitioner established a reasonable fear of persecution for withholding of removal
where he did not show a nexus to a protected ground).
As to protection under the Convention Against Torture, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that Miranda-Soto failed to show a reasonable
possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836-37 (9th Cir.
2016) (petitioner failed to demonstrate government acquiescence sufficient to
establish a reasonable possibility of future torture).
We reject as unsupported by the record Miranda-Soto’s contentions that the
IJ violated his right to due process.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-678
As to petition No. 23-1235, because a prior removal order that has been
reinstated “is not subject to being reopened or reviewed,” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5),
the agency lacked jurisdiction to consider Miranda-Soto’s motion to reopen. See
Gutierrez-Zavala v. Garland, 32 F.4th 806, 811 (9th Cir. 2022) (“When the BIA
denies a motion to reopen a reinstated removal order on grounds other than a lack
of jurisdiction, we may deny a petition challenging that ruling based on the BIA’s
lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).”); Cuenca v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1079,
1084 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]his Court repeatedly has interpreted [8 U.S.C.]
§ 1231(a)(5) as divesting the BIA of jurisdiction to reopen a removal proceeding
after reinstatement of the underlying removal order.”).
Because this determination is dispositive of his claim, we do not address
Miranda-Soto’s remaining contentions regarding his motion to reopen. 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate
issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
No. 23-678: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 23-1235: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --