Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jorge Ramirez v. Jefferson Sessions, 13-72761 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 13-72761 Visitors: 20
Filed: Oct. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 17 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE M. RAMIREZ, No. 13-72761 Petitioner, Agency No. A073-971-682 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 6, 2017** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Jorge Ramirez petitions for review of a Board of
More
                                                                            FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            OCT 17 2017
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS


                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


JORGE M. RAMIREZ,                                No.   13-72761

              Petitioner,                        Agency No. A073-971-682

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.


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

                            Submitted October 6, 2017**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Jorge Ramirez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeal’s

(BIA) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of his

application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have


      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). “Due process challenges to immigration

proceedings are reviewed de novo.” Zetino v. Holder, 
622 F.3d 1007
, 1011 (9th

Cir. 2010). “We review the factual findings underlying the BIA’s denial of CAT

relief for substantial evidence.” Vinh Tan Nguyen v. Holder, 
763 F.3d 1022
, 1029

(9th Cir. 2014).

      1. To prevail on a due process claim, Ramirez must demonstrate prejudice.

Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 
255 F.3d 775
, 779 (9th Cir. 2001). Ramirez has not argued,

however, that he suffered any prejudice from the BIA’s refusal to grant an

extension of his briefing deadline.

      2. The BIA adopted the immigration judge’s finding that Ramirez failed to

establish a reasonable possibility of future torture by the Guatemalan government,

or by private actors with the government’s acquiescence. We conclude that

substantial evidence supports that determination.

      PETITION DENIED.




                                         2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer