Manolo HERNANDEZ-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: January 10, 2020
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Juan Antonio Laguna, Law Offices of Juan A. Laguna, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christina P. Greer, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Manolo Hernandez-Vazquez, 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 applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 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 agency’s denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez-Vazquez failed to establish the harm he experienced in Mexico was on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”). In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Hernandez-Vazquez failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be persecuted in Mexico. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”). Thus, Hernandez-Vazquez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Hernandez-Vazquez 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 Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez-Vazquez’s request for a continuance where he failed to demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.