PEDRO RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72599 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 23 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA, AKA Carlos A. Contreras, AKA Pedro Garcia, AKA Pedro Rodriguez, AKA Pedro Rodriguez Garcia, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72599 Agency No. A079-768-854 MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Pedro Rodriguez-Garcia, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 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 we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny the petition for review. Rodriguez-Garcia does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that he failed to establish he qualified for an exception excusing his untimely filed asylum application. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are deemed waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Rodriguez-Garcia’s asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that RodriguezGarcia failed to establish a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated 2 by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to Rodriguez-Garcia’s withholding of removal claim. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-16. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of RodriguezGarcia’s CAT claim because he has not shown it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government of Mexico or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. Finally, the agency did not abuse its discretion in concluding that RodriguezGarcia failed to establish good cause for a continuance to seek post-conviction relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on . . . speculations.”); Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (the denial of a continuance was within the agency’s discretion where relief was not immediately available to the petitioner). We reject Rodriguez-Garcia’s contention that the agency’s analysis was deficient. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3
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.
