Douglas Quinteros v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 5 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS ALBERTO QUINTEROS, No. 15-71261
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-347-898
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Douglas Alberto Quinteros, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”), and cancellation of removal.1
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except
to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing
statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).
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 denial of a continuance. See Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d
1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Quinteros’s request for an
additional continuance for lack of good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v.
Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors considered in determining
whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the
nature of the evidence excluded and the number of continuances previously
granted). To the extent Quinteros claims the agency violated due process and his
right to counsel, we lack jurisdiction to consider these claims because he did not
1
Quinteros does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum application as
untimely.
2 15-71261
raise them before the BIA and they are the type of claimed due process violations
that can be corrected by the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Sola v. Holder, 720
F.3d 1134, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (holding that due process
challenges correctable by the BIA must be exhausted).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal
based on the discretionary determination that Quinteros did not show exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b,
1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009)
(so holding). Quinteros has not raised a colorable constitutional or legal claim
over which we retain jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Quinteros failed
to establish past persecution or a clear probability of persecution based on a
protected ground. See, e.g., Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2006)
(“[P]ersecution is an extreme concept [that] does not include every sort of
treatment our society regards as offensive.”) (internal quotation marks omitted);
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, Quinteros’s claim for
withholding of removal fails.
3 15-71261
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Quinteros 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 Honduras. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
4 15-71261