United States v. 2020-04-10 | 19-70516 | LEOCADIA MAGANA-MENDOZA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEOCADIA MAGANA-MENDOZA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-70516

Agency No. A096-342-951

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Leocadia Magana-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for deferral of
removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

*
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

APR 10 2020

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

2 19-70516
findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Magana-Mendoza failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
id. at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state
action” for CAT relief). We reject Magana-Mendoza’s contentions that the agency
failed to consider the country conditions evidence or otherwise erred in its legal
analysis. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency
need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA
reviewed the record).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Magana-Mendoza’s
contentions regarding the agency’s adverse credibility findings. 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.