NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUL 23 2020
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR ENRIQUE SILVA-PEREZ,                      No.    19-72012

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A200-281-369

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                                Immigration Judge

                               Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

       Hector Enrique Silva-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his motion for a continuance and

determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of

persecution or torture in Mexico, and is thus not entitled to relief from his

reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review


       *
             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).
for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo claims of

due process violations in immigration proceedings. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 

, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

      In his opening brief, Silva-Perez does not challenge the IJ’s negative

reasonable fear determination. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 

,

1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s

opening brief are waived).

      The IJ did not abuse her discretion in concluding that Silva-Perez failed to

show good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 

, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors considered include the nature of the

evidence excluded).

      Silva-Perez’s due process claim fails because he has not established error or

prejudice from the denial of the continuance. See Lata v. INS, 

,

1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (a petitioner must show error and prejudice to prevail on a

due process claim).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          2                                     19-72012