Griselda Barrera Mazariegos; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRISELDA BARRERA
MAZARIEGOS; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-439
Agency Nos.
A215-647-852
A215-647-853
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Griselda Barrera Mazariegos and her minor daughter, natives and citizens of
Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”)
* 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 23-439
decision denying their application for asylum, and Barrera Mazariegos’s
applications for withholding of removal 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.
Because petitioners do not challenge the agency’s dispositive adverse
credibility determination, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706
F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). The BIA did not err in declining to reach the
IJ’s determination on the merits, 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), and we do not reach petitioners’ contentions as to the merits
because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds, see Santiago-Rodriguez v.
Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA,
we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim and Barrera
Mazariegos’s withholding of removal claim fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Barrera Mazariegos’s claim was based on the same testimony the agency
found not credible, and Barrera Mazariegos does not point to any other evidence in
the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-439
tortured in Guatemala. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir.
2003).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --