Raul Garcia-Perez v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL GARCIA-PEREZ, AKA Raul Garcia No. 19-70324
Perez, AKA Raul Garcia-Lopez, AKA Raul
Perez Garcia, Agency No. A090-854-602
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Raul Garcia-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and his request
*
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).
for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 agency’s
denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia-Perez
failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of
a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011)
(holding that a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on
account of a protected ground). Thus, Garcia-Perez’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Garcia-Perez 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 Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance where
Garcia-Perez failed to demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an
immigration judge may grant a continuance for good cause shown).
2 19-70324
We do not consider the materials Garcia-Perez submitted that are not part of
the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996)
(this court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
We lack jurisdiction to review Garcia-Perez’s contentions regarding changed
circumstances. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Garcia-Perez’s motion (Docket Entry No. 25) to file a supplemental opening
brief is granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental opening brief received at
Docket Entry No. 22.
Garcia-Perez’s motions (Docket Entry Nos. 23 and 24) for reconsideration
are denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 19-70324