Rudy Aroldo Monterroso v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUDY AROLDO MONTERROSO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74053
Agency No. A071-569-981
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Rudy Aroldo Monterroso, 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 motion for a continuance
and denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse 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).
FILED
AUG 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-74053
discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, and review de novo claims of
due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,
526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Monterroso’s
request for a further continuance to present testimony from an expert witness
where it was made on the day the witness was scheduled to testify, Monterroso had
previously been granted a nine-month continuance to present the witness, and he
did not present any evidence of the witness’s qualifications. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (listing factors
to consider in reviewing the denial of a continuance). We reject Monterroso’s
contention that the IJ exhibited bias. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Monterroso failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if returned. See
Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. We reject Monterroso’s contention that the agency erred
in its analysis.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --