NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TRINIDAD MARTINEZ-SANDOVAL, No. 16-71994 AKA Marvin Martinez Sandoval, AKA Trinidad Martinez Sandoval, Agency No. A200-153-740 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 6, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Trinidad Martinez-Sandoval, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final removal order, dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his * 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). applications for withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review the agency’s denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). Additionally, we review the BIA’s particularly serious crime determination for abuse of discretion and review the denial of withholding and CAT relief for substantial evidence. Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120, 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. First, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez’s request for a continuance. The conviction records and police reports that the IJ considered were admitted in the removal proceedings. Moreover, Martinez had ample notice that they would be considered in the context of the particularly serious crime determination. Because Martinez had a reasonable opportunity to investigate the conviction records and police reports prior to the removal proceeding, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Martinez’s continuance request. See Bondarenko v. Holder, 733 F.3d 899, 907 (9th Cir. 2013). Second, the BIA also did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s conclusion that Petitioner’s assault conviction under California’s Penal Code § 240 qualifies as a particularly serious crime, rendering him statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal and withholding under the CAT. Our review is limited to 2 whether the agency relied on the appropriate factors and proper evidence. See Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2015) (the court may not reweigh the evidence and reach its own conclusion in review of the agency’s particularly serious crime designation). Here, the BIA and the IJ considered the relevant factors and applied them to the record evidence and there is no indication that the agency acted “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 385 (9th Cir. 2012). See also Konou, 750 F.3d at 1126–27 (listing factors to consider in determining whether a crime is particularly serious). Third, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals