MANUEL GONZALEZ GOMEZ V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 15-72264 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 8 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANUEL GONZALEZ GOMEZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72264 Agency No. A070-921-132 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 14, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: NGUYEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge. Manuel Gonzalez Gomez petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order * 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. denying a continuance and denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual determinations for substantial evidence, see Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268–69 (9th Cir. 2011), and the IJ’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion, see Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2019), we deny the petition for review. 1. The IJ had no obligation to continue the merits hearing so that Gonzalez Gomez could submit a new declaration in support of his application for asylum.1 The IJ already had provided him 20 months to provide this documentation, and at the merits hearing, Gonzalez Gomez did not request more time to file a new declaration. Having no indication that Gonzalez Gomez intended to submit a new declaration, the IJ did not abuse his discretion by not sua sponte continuing the merits hearing for that purpose. Cf. Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1105 (9th Cir. 2004). 2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Gonzalez Gomez’s evidence showed only that he “desire[d] to 1 In his notice of appeal to the BIA, Gonzalez Gomez argued that he “was not given an opportunity to supplement [his] Political Asylum Petition.” We assume he referred to supplementing his asylum petition with a new declaration rather than with an application for cancellation of removal. Otherwise, his claim here is unexhausted and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members,” which “bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Similarly, his “generalized evidence of violence and crime in [Guatemala] is not particular to [him] and is insufficient to meet [the] standard” for CAT protection. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION 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.
