NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOEL RIVERA-HUERTA, No. 16-72906

Petitioner, Agency No. A205-648-506

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2022**

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Joel Rivera-Huerta, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

* 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rivera-Huerta

failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be 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”);

see also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal

dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected

ground). Thus, Rivera-Huerta’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Rivera-Huerta’s remaining

contentions regarding his asylum and withholding of removal 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).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Rivera-Huerta did not establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.

See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of

torture).

2 16-72906 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 16-72906