Francisco Padilla-Lopez v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO PADILLA-LOPEZ, No. 20-70990
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-221-106
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Padilla-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”) and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754
F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial
of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Padilla-Lopez 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); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of
violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient” to
establish eligibility for CAT relief); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68
(9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
The BIA did not err in concluding the IJ did not violate Padilla-Lopez’s right
to due process by denying his request for a continuance. See Padilla-Martinez v.
Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a
petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
Padilla-Lopez’s contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction
over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895
2 20-70990
(9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner]
did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Padilla-Lopez’s motion to
remand to apply for cancellation of removal, where he did not establish prima facie
eligibility for the relief sought. See Partap v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th
Cir. 2010) (“[B]ecause [claimant] did not tender any evidence showing
‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,’ the BIA did not abuse its discretion
in declining to enter a remand order.”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-70990