NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS NUNEZ-MIRON, No. 19-71738
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-362-561
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Nunez-Miron, 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 application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”),
and denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
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 de novo
questions of law and 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 deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Nunez-Miron established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. ' 1208.4(a)(4)-(5).
Nunez-Miron did not experience past harm in Mexico. Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that Nunez-Miron failed to establish the harm
he fears would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622
F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment
by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no
nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Nunez-Miron’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
Nunez-Miron does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance for lack of
good cause, where approval of Nunez-Miron’s U visa application was speculative
2 19-71738
and removal would not affect his eligibility for the U visa. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29
(an immigration judge may grant a continuance for good cause shown); Singh v.
Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ not required to grant a continuance
based on speculation).
Nunez-Miron’s request to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is foreclosed by
Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain
information from initial notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes
by later hearing notice).
As stated in the court’s September 12, 2019 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-71738