JUAN MANUEL MICHEL-PANDURO, AKA Juan Manuel Michel v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MANUEL MICHEL-PANDURO,
AKA Juan Manuel Michel,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73261
Agency No. A200-155-655
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2019 **
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Manuel Michel-Panduro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
terminate and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying his application for withholding of removal and denying his request for a
* 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
NOV 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-73261
continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the
denial of withholding of removal for substantial evidence, and we review questions
of law de novo. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018). We review
for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569
F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition
for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Michel-Panduro’s contentions as to past
persecution and a “former landowner” particular social group because he failed to
raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Michel-
Panduro failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution in Mexico. See
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future
persecution was not objectively reasonable). Thus, Michel-Panduro’s withholding
of removal claim fails.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Michel-Panduro’s request for
a continuance where Michel-Panduro failed to demonstrate good cause. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-73261
Lastly, the BIA did not err in denying Michel-Panduro’s motion to terminate
proceedings. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019)
(notice to appear need not include time and date of hearing to vest jurisdiction in
the immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --