Dieuseul Fleury v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIEUSEUL FLEURY,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72845
Agency No. A209-167-773
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Dieuseul Fleury, a native and citizen of Haiti, 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 (“CAT”). We have
* 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
MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72845
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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Fleury failed
to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See
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”); Zetino v. Holder,
622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an 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”). Thus, petitioner’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Fleury 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 Haiti. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d
1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]orture must be ‘inflicted by or at the instigation of
or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity.’”) (internal citation omitted).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Fleury’s remaining contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72845
regarding 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --