Hector Silva-Perez v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR ENRIQUE SILVA-PEREZ, No. 19-72012
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-281-369
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Immigration Judge
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Hector Enrique Silva-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion for a continuance and
determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of
persecution or torture in Mexico, and is thus not entitled to relief from his
reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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 abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo claims of
due process violations in immigration proceedings. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603
F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Silva-Perez does not challenge the IJ’s negative
reasonable fear determination. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived).
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in concluding that Silva-Perez failed to
show good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569
F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors considered include the nature of the
evidence excluded).
Silva-Perez’s due process claim fails because he has not established error or
prejudice from the denial of the continuance. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (a petitioner must show error and prejudice to prevail on a
due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 19-72012