Vazquez-Saavedra v. Blanche

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEONEL DAVID VAZQUEZ- No. 25-4382 SAAVEDRA, Agency No. A055-283-483 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 12, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: COLLINS and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and DONATO, District Judge.***

Leonel David Vazquez-Saavedra, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his

* 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). *** The Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. appeal of an order by an Immigration Judge (IJ) that ordered him removed to

Mexico.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

“Our review is limited to the BIA’s decision except where the IJ’s opinion is

expressly adopted.” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir.

2022) (citation omitted). “We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo, and its

factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d

1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). We review de novo

constitutional questions, including alleged due process violations. Vilchez v. Holder,

682 F.3d 1195, 1198–99 (9th Cir. 2012). We review the agency’s denial of a request

for a continuance for abuse of discretion. Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th

Cir. 2019).

1. The BIA did not err in determining that the IJ adequately developed the

record with respect to petitioner’s fear of returning to Mexico. The IJ “start[ed] the

questioning at a general level.” Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir. 2021).

The IJ also “asked pertinent questions,” and “did not deprive [petitioner] of a

reasonable opportunity to develop his own story relevant to a claim for relief.

Zamorano v. Garland, 2 F.4th 1213, 1226–27 (9th Cir. 2021).

1 Petitioner’s briefs spell his last name as “Vasquez Saavedra,” but in the proceedings before the IJ and the BIA, his last name was spelled as “Vazquez- Saavedra.” The discrepancy was not explained. This order will use the spelling used in the proceedings below.

2 25-4382 2. The BIA properly concluded that the IJ adequately advised petitioner

regarding his apparent eligibility to apply for relief prior to ordering him removed.

Petitioner testified that he was afraid to be removed to Mexico because of his

demeanor and manner of speaking and because he did not know about the conditions

in Mexico. When the IJ asked if he was “just afraid of general violence that you’ve

heard . . . happens in Mexico, and since you’ve never been there, you’re afraid of

the unknown,” petitioner agreed. Petitioner did not present any facts that might have

demonstrated a reasonable possibility of a “‘particularized threat’ of torture.”

Hussain, 985 F.3d at 649 (quoting Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir.

2008)); see also C.J.L.G. v. Barr, 923 F.3d 622, 627 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc)

(recognizing the “‘apparent eligibility’ standard of 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2) is

triggered whenever the facts before the IJ raise a ‘reasonable possibility that the

petitioner may be eligible for relief’” (quoting Moran-Enriquez v. INS, 884 F.2d 420,

423 (9th Cir. 1989))). The IJ properly advised petitioner that “it does not look like

there are any applications that are available to you, that would allow you to stay in

the United States.” See C.J.L.G., 923 F.3d at 627 (observing that an IJ need not

advise of availability of relief when the petitioner’s eligibility for relief is “not

‘plausible’”) (citations omitted).

3. The BIA did not err in upholding the IJ’s denial of a further continuance

to allow petitioner to find an attorney. “IJs must provide aliens with reasonable time

3 25-4382 to locate counsel and permit counsel to prepare for the hearing,” but “[n]o bright line

guides our consideration of what constitutes reasonable time” and “[t]he inquiry is

fact-specific and thus varies from case to case.” Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094,

1098–99 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Although petitioner was in custody and

repeatedly expressed the desire to retain an attorney, he has been in the United States

since he was a young child and is fluent in English; he was provided with a list of

free or low-cost legal service providers at the time of his first hearing; and he was

given a month and a half to find a lawyer. He was also advised that he needed to be

prepared to speak on his own behalf should his attempts to locate counsel prove

unsuccessful. At the third and final hearing, petitioner did not affirmatively identify

any particular barriers that were frustrating his efforts to locate counsel. Overall,

there was not a “clear abuse” in the IJ’s denial of another continuance. Id. at 1099.

The BIA properly concluded that petitioner was granted a reasonable amount of time

and provided with a fair opportunity to secure legal representation. See Arrey, 916

F.3d at 1158 (holding that there was no due process violation where the IJ provided

the petitioner with reasonable time to locate counsel).

PETITION DENIED.2

2 The government’s motion to consolidate for decision the petition here and the petition filed in No. 26-724 (Dkt. No. 41) is denied. The stay of removal (Dkt. 18) is lifted.

4 25-4382