FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SONIA ELIZABETH CORONADO, No. 08-70336
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-599-841
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sonia Elizabeth Coronado, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the IJ’s denial of a continuance,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), for
substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings, Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d
915, 920 (9th Cir. 2006), and de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We
deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying a continuance where
Coronado did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may
grant a continuance for good cause shown); Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92-93 (9th
Cir. 1988). It follows that Coronado’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a
due process claim).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of Coronado’s application for
protection under the Convention Against Torture because the record does not
establish that it is more likely than not that Coronado would be tortured if returned
to Guatemala. See Almaghzar, 457 F.3d at 922-23. Coronado’s contention that the
IJ failed to consider all of the evidence is belied by the record. See id.
2 08-70336
Coronado’s contention that the BIA erred in affirming without opinion is
unavailing because she did not argue in her appeal brief that the BIA could not
resolve her appeal without further factfinding. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 08-70336