SORIANO MARQUEZ v. SESSIONS III (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Rey David Soriano-Marquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance and denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part, and deny in part the petition for review.

We do not consider new documents submitted with Soriano-Marquez’s opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

We lack jurisdiction to review Soriano-Marquez’s contention regarding voluntary departure because it was not raised to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional).

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Soriano-Marquez’s request for a continuance because Soriano-Marquez did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (factors to consider in reviewing denial of continuance).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Soriano-Marquez failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016 (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). Thus, Soriano-Marquez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Soriano-Marquez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by the record Soriano-Marquez’s contention that the BIA failed to apply the correct legal standard in its denial of CAT relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.