United States v. 2020-06-09 | 18-71571 | ADRIAN LAZARO GASPAR V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADRIAN LAZARO GASPAR,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-71571

Agency No. A208-121-722

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Adrian Lazaro Gaspar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary
departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

*
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

JUN 9 2020

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

2 18-71571
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Lazaro Gaspar does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s
denial of voluntary departure. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-
80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lazaro Gaspar
failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a
protected ground. See 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,
Lazaro Gaspar’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Lazaro Gaspar’s contention
that his fear of future persecution is subjective genuine and objectively reasonable.
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 also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lazaro Gaspar 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
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Lazaro Gaspar’s request to remand, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

3 18-71571
See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to
appear need not include time and date of hearing to vest jurisdiction in the
immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.