Marlon Cordon-Cordon v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Marlon Cordon-Cordon v. Loretta E. Lynch

668 F. App'x 235

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 8, 2016

Docket15-70804

StatusUnpublished

This text of 668 F. App'x 235 (Marlon Cordon-Cordon v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marlon Cordon-Cordon v. Loretta E. Lynch, 668 F. App'x 235 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Marlon Cordon-Cordon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and from the BIA’s denial of his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Cordon-Cordon’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA).

Cordon-Cordon does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum application as untimely. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Cordon-Cordon failed to establish that a protected ground is one central reason for the harm he fears in *236 Guatemala. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act, petitioner must prove a protected ground is ‘one central reason’ for the persecution). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports denial of Cordon-Cordon’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cordon-Cordon’s request for a continuance. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247.

PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Marlon Cordon-Cordon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and from the BIA’s denial of his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Cordon-Cordon’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must exhaust administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA).

Cordon-Cordon does not challenge the agency’s denial of his asylum application as untimely. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver). Thus, we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Cordon-Cordon failed to establish that a protected ground is one central reason for the harm he fears in *236 Guatemala. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (under the REAL ID Act, petitioner must prove a protected ground is ‘one central reason’ for the persecution). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports denial of Cordon-Cordon’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Cordon-Cordon’s request for a continuance. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247.

PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 F. App'x 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlon-cordon-cordon-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack