Ismael Nambo-Solorio v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISMAEL NAMBO-SOLORIO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-108
Agency No.
A091-006-439
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 18, 2023**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Ismael Nambo-Solorio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
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, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”), and denying a motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is
* 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
AUG 8 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-108
governed by 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.
Because Nambo-Solorio does not challenge the agency’s determination
that he is statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal due to his
convictions, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). Because this determination is dispositive, we need not
address Nambo-Solorio’s remaining contentions regarding his asylum and
withholding claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.
2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they
reach).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT deferral of
removal because Nambo-Solorio 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 Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(possibility of torture too speculative).
Because Nambo-Solorio does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his
motion to remand to apply for cancellation of removal, we do not address it.
See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
Nambo-Solorio did not argue before the BIA his due process contentions
and requests for other relief, and as such, he did not exhaust the contentions and
we decline to address them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-108
administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S.
Ct. 1103, 1113-14 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-
processing rule).
We do not consider the materials Nambo-Solorio references in his
opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS,
79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
We deny Nambo-Solorio’s renewed request for a stay of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --