Isaac Guillermo Peraza Mejia v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISAAC GUILLERMO PERAZA MEJIA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70822
Agency No. A095-738-361
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Isaac Guillermo Peraza Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
* 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).
FILED
AUG 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-70822
review for abuse of discretion an IJ’s denial of a continuance, Taggar v. Holder,
736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013), we review de novo due process challenges,
Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012), and we review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, id. at 1199. We deny the
petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in concluding Peraza Mejia failed to
establish good cause for a third continuance. See Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876,
881 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding no abuse of discretion in denial of motion to
continue). Thus, Peraza Mejia’s related contention that his due process rights
were violated by the denial of the continuance fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1046 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
Further, the record does not support Peraza Mejia’s contention that the IJ’s remarks
during the hearing demonstrated bias. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497
F.3d 919, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2007).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Peraza Mejia
failed to establish that the government of Guatemala was or will be unwilling or
unable to control the gangs that he fears. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-70822
1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, Peraza Mejia’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --