Rojas Portillo v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANA VICTORIA ROJAS PORTILLO; et No. 22-2058 al., Agency Nos. A209-979-538 Petitioners, A209-979-537 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 12, 2023** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Ana Victoria Rojas Portillo and her minor child, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying * 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). their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 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 deny the petition for review. Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determinations that they failed to establish past persecution, nexus to a protected ground, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013). In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding whether the past harm rose to the level of persecution, or whether the proposed particular social groups of “members of the Rojas-Portillo family” and “witnesses to criminal activity in El Salvador” are cognizable. 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, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived challenge to the IJ’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. 2 22-2058