Cristobal Martinez-Cruz v. Merrick B. Garland, No. 20-3621 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner has failed to establish that the IJ's discretionary decision not to grant a last-minute continuance of his hearing was a clear abuse of the IJ's discretion; substantial evidence supports the agency's decision that petitioner failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-3621 ___________________________ Cristobal Martinez-Cruz lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: October 1, 2021 Filed: November 30, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Cristobal Martinez-Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying him withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He does not challenge the denial of CAT relief and has therefore waived review of that claim. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004). After careful review of the record, we deny the petition for review. MartinezCruz failed to establish a “clear abuse” of the IJ’s discretionary decision not to grant Martinez-Cruz’s last-minute request for a continuance of his individual hearing. See Choge v. Lynch, 806 F.3d 438, 441 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2020). The immigration judge considered relevant factors and rationally explained why Martinez-Cruz failed to demonstrate good cause, including his lack of due diligence in the nearly five years leading up to the individual hearing. Even if preserved, Martinez-Cruz’s contention that denial of a continuance violated his due process rights is without merit. See Al Khouri v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 461, 464, 466 (8th Cir. 2004). We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Martinez-Cruz failed to established eligibility for withholding of removal. See, e.g., Cano v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1034, 1038-40 (8th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
