United States v. 2020-08-11 | 19-71037 | RICARDO MACIEL-PIMENTEL V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICARDO MACIEL-PIMENTEL;
ESTELA TORRES MACIEL,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71037

Agency Nos. A099-854-281
A200-978-552

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Ricardo Maciel-Pimentel and Estela Torres Maciel, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

*
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

AUG 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-71037
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo questions of law
and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Gonzalez-
Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that petitioners established
changed circumstances to excuse their untimely asylum applications. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4). In light of the agency’s time bar determination, the agency did not
err in not reaching the merits of petitioners’ asylum and humanitarian asylum
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 supports the agency’s finding that petitioners failed to
establish that the harm they experienced or fear was or would be on account of a
protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); see
also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in
a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that
“persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”).

3 19-71037
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The record does not support petitioners’ contentions that the agency failed to
consider evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of their asylum, withholding of
removal, or CAT claims.
Any error in the agency’s denial of administrative closure does not require
remand in the circumstances here. See Gonzalez-Caraveo, 882 F.3d at 894 (“In
sum, despite the IJ and BIA’s legal error, remand is not required here because
Petitioners no longer have any remaining claims for relief or pending petitions that
might affect their immigration proceedings.”).
Petitioners’ motion for stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is denied as
moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.