JESUS MARIN-AGUIRRE, AKA Jesus Aguirre Marin, AKA Jesus A. Marin v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS MARIN-AGUIRRE, AKA Jesus
Aguirre Marin, AKA Jesus A. Marin,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72863
Agency No. A205-719-275
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Marin-Aguirre, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying
* 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
MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-72863
his motion for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,
526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of law and
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
Marin-Aguirre experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel
finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no
violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Marin-Aguirre did not
establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d
1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective
evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, Marin-
Aguirre’s asylum claim fails.
Because Marin-Aguirre failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case
he did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-72863
at 1190.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Marin-Aguirre failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Marin-Aguirre’s contention that remand is
warranted for a credibility determination. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to
the agency).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Marin-Aguirre’s motion
for a continuance where he failed to show good cause to grant it. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29; Gonzalez v. INS, 82 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 1996). Marin-Aguirre’s
contention that the agency violated due process lacks merit. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error and substantial prejudice are required to
prevail on a due process claim).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --