NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DELFINO JACOBO GOMEZ- No. 20-72494 GONZALEZ, Agency No. A202-054-251 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Delfino Jacobo Gomez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance and his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gomez-Gonzalez’s request for a continuance where he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to be considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez- Gonzalez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an 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, Gomez-Gonzalez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Gomez-Gonzalez 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 Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 20-72494 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 20-72494 20-72494 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Delfino Gomez-Gonzalez v. Merrick Garland 15 November 2021 Agency Unpublished 59b205e1bd8938f9895e7ac6a78e1273a647233a
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals