HEIDI AJOAEO-SOLANO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 17-70936 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 23 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HEIDI AJOAEO-SOLANO, AKA Heidi Aguayo-Solano, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70936 Agency No. A201-281-299 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, BADE, Circuit Judges Heidi Ajoaeo-Solano, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for 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). jurisdiction under 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 review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Ajoaeo-Solano failed to show a clear probability of future persecution. See, e.g., Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (feared persecution “too speculative” to support claim). The BIA did not err in reviewing the IJ’s factual findings for clear error. See Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1063–64 (9th Cir. 2013); Matter of Z-Z-O-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 586, 590 (BIA 2015) (“[A]n Immigration Judge’s predictive findings of what may or may not occur in the future are findings of fact, which are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review.”). The agency did not err by declining to reach Ajoaeo-Solano’s membership in her proposed particular social group. 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, Ajoaeo-Solano’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Ajoaeo-Solano failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured 2 17-70936 by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by the record Ajoaeo-Solano’s contention that the agency failed to consider all of the evidence or otherwise erred in its CAT analysis. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-70936
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
