JULIO ROSALES ZARCENO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-70633 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 1 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIO ARMANDO ROSALES ZARCENO, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-70633 Agency No. A095-006-186 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Julio Armando Rosales Zarceno, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance, and denying his application for withholding of removal * 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). and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo due process claims. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of Rosales Zarceno’s request for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown); Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015). Thus, Rosales Zarceno’s related due process claim also fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). Even if credible, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rosales Zarceno failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be persecuted 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”). Thus, we deny the petition as to Rosales Zarceno’s withholding of removal claim. 2 15-70633 See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010). Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Rosales Zarceno’s CAT claim because he has not shown it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the government of El Salvador or with its consent or acquiescence. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-70633
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.
