Pedro Rodriguez-Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch
656 F. App'x 363
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Pedro Rodriguez-Garcia, a Mexican national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; his asylum application was untimely.
- The immigration judge denied relief and refused a continuance to pursue post-conviction relief; the BIA dismissed his appeal.
- Rodriguez-Garcia did not challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that his asylum application was untimely and that no exception applied.
- The agencies found he failed to show persecution tied to a protected ground (nexus) and therefore denied withholding of removal.
- The agencies also found he failed to show it was more likely than not he would be tortured by the Mexican government (or with its consent/acquiescence), denying CAT relief.
- The BIA’s denial of a continuance was upheld as within its discretion because Rodriguez-Garcia did not establish good cause or that relief was immediately available.
Issues
| Issue | Rodriguez-Garcia's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of asylum | Contended eligibility for asylum despite late filing (sought continuance to pursue relief) | Asylum untimely and no exception applies | Petition waived challenge; asylum denied |
| Nexus to a protected ground for withholding | Claimed fear of future persecution by criminals/gang members | Harassment/theft/random gang violence is not on account of a protected ground | Substantial evidence supports denial of withholding (no nexus) |
| CAT protection | Argued risk of torture if returned to Mexico | No showing government would torture or acquiesce to torture | Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief |
| Continuance for post-conviction relief | Requested continuance to pursue post-conviction relief to support claims | No good cause; relief speculative and not immediately available | Denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2008) (standards for reviewing agency factual findings in immigration cases)
- Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2015) (review standard for denial of continuance)
- Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)
- Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (REAL ID Act requires protected ground be one central reason for persecution)
- Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (criminal or random gang violence generally lacks nexus to a protected ground)
- Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ not required to grant continuance based on speculation)
- Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2008) (denial of continuance permissible when relief is not immediately available)