NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REY DAVID SORIANO-MARQUEZ, No. 14-72114
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-711-334
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Rey David Soriano-Marquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance
and denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Ahmed v.
Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir.
2010). We dismiss in part, and deny in part the petition for review.
We do not consider new documents submitted with Soriano-Marquez’s
opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (court’s review
is limited to the administrative record).
We lack jurisdiction to review Soriano-Marquez’s contention regarding
voluntary departure because it was not raised to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional).
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Soriano-Marquez’s request for
a continuance because Soriano-Marquez did not demonstrate good cause. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (factors to consider in reviewing denial
of continuance).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Soriano-
Marquez failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected
ground. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1116 (applicant’s desire to be free from
2 14-72114
harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members
bears no nexus to a protected ground). Thus, Soriano-Marquez’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Soriano-Marquez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by the
record Soriano-Marquez’s contention that the BIA failed to apply the correct legal
standard in its denial of CAT relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 14-72114