Marlon Cordon-Cordon v. Loretta E. Lynch , 668 F. App'x 235 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 8 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARLON CORDON-CORDON, AKA No. 15-70804
Marlon Monfredo Cordon-Cordon,
Agency No. A206-262-779
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Marlon Cordon-Cordon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application 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, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”),
and from the BIA’s denial of his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and for
abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526
F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Cordon-Cordon’s ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000)
(petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the
BIA).
Cordon-Cordon does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum
application as untimely. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177
n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Cordon-Cordon
failed to establish that a protected ground is one central reason for the harm he
fears in Guatemala. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir.
2008) (under the REAL ID Act, petitioner must prove a protected ground is ‘one
central reason’ for the persecution). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.
2 15-70804
Substantial evidence also supports denial of Cordon-Cordon’s CAT claim
because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cordon-Cordon’s
request for a continuance. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247.
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 15-70804