FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR MAGANA-CORTEZ, No. 14-73125
Petitioner, Agency No. A044-369-090
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Magana-Cortez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him removable and denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.
2012), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for abuse of discretion
the denial of a continuance. Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015).
We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Magana-Cortez does not challenge the agency’s determination that his
conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver is an aggravated felony
that renders him removable, and statutorily ineligible for asylum. Because of the
aggravated felony, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that
his conviction is a particularly serious crime that bars him from withholding of
removal, and he does not raise a colorable question of law that would invoke our
jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D); Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d
444, 448 (9th Cir. 2012); Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir.
2006) (a petitioner may not attack a discretionary decision simply by phrasing his
abuse of discretion challenge as a question of law).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief on the
ground that Magana-Cortez failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he
2 14-73125
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
The IJ applied the proper legal standard and did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that Magana-Cortez failed to establish good cause for a continuance to
seek post-conviction relief, where he had been granted approximately nine
continuances and Magana-Cortez’s counsel indicated that the request for post-
conviction relief had been denied by the criminal court. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29;
Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to
grant a continuance based on . . . speculations.”).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Magana-Cortez’s contention
regarding a particular social group.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 14-73125