ELEAZAR AGUIRRE-BOLIVAR V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-70835 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JAN 10 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELEAZAR AGUIRRE-BOLIVAR, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-70835 Agency No. A076-662-346 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Eleazar Aguirre-Bolivar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s * 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). factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Aguirre-Bolivar’s contentions regarding political opinion and his religion claim that he did not raise to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 2004) (the BIA’s use of the streamlined summary affirmance procedure does not eliminate the exhaustion requirement). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that AguirreBolivar failed to establish that the harm he suffered in Mexico was on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Aguirre-Bolivar failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable). Thus, Aguirre-Bolivar’s withholding of removal claim fails. In light of this disposition, we need not reach Aguirre-Bolivar’s remaining contentions regarding his withholding of removal claim. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 2 19-70835 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Aguirre-Bolivar 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 Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 19-70835
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.
