NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AGUSTIN ROMERO GARCIA; et al., No. 19-72942 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-498-959 A089-862-573 v. A206-498-953 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 5, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: SILER,*** HURWITZ, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Agustin Romero Garcia (“Romero Garcia”), Beatriz Alejandra Navarrete Barajas (“Navarrete”), and Agustin Romero Navarrete (“Romero”) (collectively, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence the factual findings underlying the determination that an applicant has not demonstrated eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review. 1. The IJ did not abuse her discretion in finding that Petitioners had not established good cause for a continuance of the hearing to seek certifications for U- or T-visas. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1240.6. We review the denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion and consider “the nature of the evidence excluded,” “the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct,” any “inconvenience to the court,” and “the number of continuances previously granted.” Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). Although the IJ “did not expressly address the Ahmed factors, [she] sufficiently outlined why good cause did not exist.” Mu v. Barr, 936 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2019). The IJ noted that the request for a continuance was made on the date of the hearing and came nearly ten years after Navarrete allegedly became eligible for a visa. The IJ also noted that Petitioners had been given over two years to prepare for the hearing, thus providing them ample time to bring this issue to the 2 court’s attention. Moreover, the denial of a continuance did not deprive Navarrete of the opportunity to seek a visa; she remained eligible to do so even after an order of removal was entered. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(1)(ii), § 214.11(d)(1)(ii). 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even assuming their proposed social groups were cognizable, Petitioners failed to establish a nexus between any past or feared future persecution and membership in these social groups and therefore were not eligible for asylum or withholding. See INS v. Elias- Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992). Navarrete allegedly fears persecution as one involved “in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals