Leonardo Cruz-Chavez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEONARDO CRUZ-CHAVEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71430
Agency No. A201-290-014
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Leonardo Cruz-Chavez, 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 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
APR 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-71430
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). 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.
Because Cruz-Chavez does not challenge the agency’s determinations as to
his claims based on the proposed particular social groups of “individuals who
oppose drug cartels and gangs” and “an individual returning to Mexico from the
United States who will be perceived as having money,” we do not address them.
See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cruz-Chavez
failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of his membership in
the proposed particular social group of his family. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive],
direct or circumstantial”); see also 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”).
Cruz-Chavez’s contentions that the agency failed to properly address his
claim based on family membership, erred in its application of law, and denied him
due process, are not supported by the record.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-71430
Because Cruz-Chavez’s asylum claim fails on the merits, we need not reach
his remaining contentions regarding whether he established changed or
extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application and
whether he is a class member under Rojas v. Johnson, 305 F. Supp. 3d 1176, 1179
(W.D. Wash. 2018). 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, Cruz-Chavez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Because Cruz-Chavez does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT
protection, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --