Felix Mauricio Gonzalez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIX MAURICIO GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-40
Agency No.
A206-452-554
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 12, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Felix Mauricio Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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
DEC 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-40
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the BIA’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241
(9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Because Mauricio Gonzalez does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive
determination that he failed to establish nexus to a protected ground, we do not
address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
The BIA did not err in declining to reach the IJ’s determination that his past harm
did not rise to the level of persecution, 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), and we do not reach Mauricio Gonzalez’s
contentions as to the merits of this issue because the BIA did not deny relief on this
ground, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In
reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by
that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, Mauricio
Gonzalez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection because
petitioner 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 El Salvador. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --