Jorge M. Ramirez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE M. RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72761
Agency No. A073-971-682
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 6, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Ramirez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeal’s
(BIA) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his
application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
FILED
OCT 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). “Due process challenges to immigration
proceedings are reviewed de novo.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th
Cir. 2010). “We review the factual findings underlying the BIA’s denial of CAT
relief for substantial evidence.” Vinh Tan Nguyen v. Holder, 763 F.3d 1022, 1029
(9th Cir. 2014).
1. To prevail on a due process claim, Ramirez must demonstrate prejudice.
Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001). Ramirez has not argued,
however, that he suffered any prejudice from the BIA’s refusal to grant an
extension of his briefing deadline.
2. The BIA adopted the immigration judge’s finding that Ramirez failed to
establish a reasonable possibility of future torture by the Guatemalan government,
or by private actors with the government’s acquiescence. We conclude that
substantial evidence supports that determination.
PETITION DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --