Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0630-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jorge M. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72761
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 6, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed October 17, 2017
    Zulu Ali, Law Office of Zulu AH, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner
    Matthew B, George, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    
      Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

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