GOMEZ-PEREZ V. GARLAND, No. 22-1952 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELKIN USIEL GOMEZ-PEREZ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-1952 Agency No. A205-320-454 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Helkin Usiel Gomez-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have 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. Id. We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez-Perez failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The applicant must demonstrate a nexus between her past or feared harm and a protected ground.”) (citation omitted); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”). Thus, his asylum claim fails. Because Gomez-Perez failed to establish any nexus at all, 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). In light of this disposition, we need not reach Gomez-Perez’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). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Gomez-Perez 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 Guatemala. 2 22-1952 See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Gomez-Perez’s request for remand to seek prosecutorial discretion is denied. See Morales de Soto v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 822, 826-27 (9th Cir. 2016) (government’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion not subject to judicial review, and remand not warranted based on changes in agency policy). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 22-1952

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.