Arturo Vasquez Santiago v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTURO VASQUEZ SANTIAGO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70311
Agency No. A206-671-257
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Vasquez Santiago, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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
MAY 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-70311
(“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. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vasquez
Santiago failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a
protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”);
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”). In light of this disposition, we
need not reach Vasquez Santiago’s remaining contentions regarding his claims for
asylum and withholding of removal. 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). Thus, Vasquez Santiago’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Vasquez Santiago 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
Mexico. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-70311
(“torture 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). Vasquez Santiago’s contentions that the agency applied
the wrong standard or otherwise erred in the CAT analysis are not supported by the
record.
Vasquez Santiago’s contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his
proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th
1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice
to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and
8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --