MAGANA MENDOZA v. BARR (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Leocadia Magana-Mendoza, 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 decision denying her application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Magana-Mendoza failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See id. at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief). We reject Magana-Mendoza’s contentions that the agency failed to consider the country conditions evidence or otherwise erred in its legal analysis. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Magana-Mendoza’s contentions regarding the agency’s adverse credibility findings. 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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.