Opinion
16-72863
03-22-2022
JESUS MARIN-AGUIRRE, AKA Jesus Aguirre Marin, AKA Jesus A. Marin, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A205-719-275
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Jesus Marin-Aguirre, a 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"), and denying his motion for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that the harm Marin-Aguirre experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Marin-Aguirre did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present "compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution"). Thus, Marin-Aguirre's asylum claim fails.
Because Marin-Aguirre failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case he did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Marin-Aguirre failed to show 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 Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Marin-Aguirre's contention that remand is warranted for a credibility determination. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Marin-Aguirre's motion for a continuance where he failed to show good cause to grant it. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Gonzalez v. INS, 82 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 1996). Marin-Aguirre's contention that the agency violated due process lacks merit. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error and substantial prejudice are required to prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. [*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.