Gilberto Diaz Valencia v. Pamela Bondi

facts, Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1003 (9th Cir. 2025). We deny in

part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Diaz Valencia

failed to show he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.

See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”). Thus, Diaz Valencia’s

asylum claim fails.

Because Diaz Valencia failed to show any nexus to a protected ground, he

also failed to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero

v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).

Because nexus is dispositive, we need not reach Diaz Valencia’s remaining

contentions regarding the merits of his claims. 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). We reject as unsupported by the record Diaz

Valencia’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect standard of review.

Substantial evidence also supports the…