Opinion
Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2003.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc August 26, 2004.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3) On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Charles Pell, Zachary Bulthuis, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jorge Velasco, pro se, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Director, Immigration
and Naturalization Service, Los Angeles, CA, OIL, Susan Houser, Esq., Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before BRUNETTI, T.G. NELSON, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Jorge Velasco petitions for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") of his application for relief from deportation pursuant to the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here.
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 23 I.L.M. 1027 (1984).
We conclude that reinstatement of Velasco's 1988 deportation order was proper under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Velasco bore the obligation to inform the INS of any address change. His failure to do so does not preclude the application of § 1231(a)(5), neither does reinstatement of the deportation order in these circumstances constitute a due process violation.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1305(a). Velasco has not raised the argument before the BIA or this court that the INS never informed him of his obligation under 8 U.S.C. § 1305(a). His case is therefore distinguishable from our prior holding in Urbina-Osejo v. INS, 124 F.3d 1314, 1317 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that "there is reasonable cause for a failure to appear when an alien has not received notice of the time and place of the hearing due to a change of address, and the alien was not informed of a requirement to advise the INS of any change of address.") (emphasis added). See also Lahmidi v. INS, 149 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir.1998) (same).
Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002) (reviewing due process challenges de novo ); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); Espinoza-Castro v. INS, 242 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir.2001) (upholding the BIA's determination under the substantial evidence standard).
We also conclude that the BIA correctly rejected Velasco's petition for CAT relief. Velasco did not show that it was "more likely than not that he ... would be tortured if removed to" El Salvador. In addition, he failed to establish that "gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights" exist in El Salvador; thus, his case does not fall under 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3)(iii). Additionally, the IJ and BIA ignored no specific evidence of torture, and § 208.16(c)(3)(iv) is not applicable.
Velasco does not even argue that §§ 208.16(c)(3)(i) or (ii) apply to his case.
The BIA correctly rejected Velasco's due process challenges to the IJ's refusal to allow Velasco to present additional evidence. The district court provided Velasco with a more than "reasonable opportunity to present evidence." His failure to present adequate evidence cannot be blamed on the IJ.
Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 904 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Similarly, the BIA properly held that the IJ did not err in refusing to grant Velasco a fourth continuance to seek counsel. The IJ did "everything [she] reasonably could to permit [Velasco] to obtain counsel," granting three continuances for Velasco to seek representation. "[I]n the
Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463, 1469 (9th Cir.1986).
Page 38.
context of immigration proceedings ... the decision to grant or deny continuances is in the sound discretion of the trial judge."
Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 n. 4 (9th Cir.1988). This court has denied petitions for review in the past in situations "where the alien had already had an extended period of time in which to obtain counsel and did not do so." Id. See, e.g., Vides-Vides, 783 F.2d at 1470.
Finally, we conclude that the INS did not violate Velasco's right to confidentiality in the CAT proceedings. Velasco has presented no evidence that a disclosure of the kind prohibited by 8 C.F.R. § 208.6 was made. While an officer informed the Salvadoran Interpol office that Velasco was in immigration proceedings, the information revealed nothing regarding the nature of Velasco's application for relief.
PETITION DENIED.