N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
ESTHELA C ASTILLO GAR C IA; e t a l.,

Pe t i tione rs,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-72813 Age n c y Nos. A206-271-727 A206-271-728 A206-271-729
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d June 7, 2023 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, S.R . THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s. Esthe la C a stillo Ga

rc ia and he r two m inor c hildre n, na tive s a nd c itiz e ns of M e x ic o, pe tition pro se

for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” )



# F IL ED
JUN 9 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).orde r dism issing the ir a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c i sion de ny ing the i r m otion to c ontinue an d M s. C a stillo Ga

rc ia ’ s a pplic ations for a s y lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W

he re , a s he re , the B IA c onduc ts its own re v i e w of the e vide nc e and la w but a lso e xpre s sly

a dopts the IJ’ s opinion, we

re vie w both theIJ a

nd B IA de c isions. Hosse ini v . Gonzale s , 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th C ir. 2006). W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion thea ge nc y ’ s de c ision to deny

a c ontinua n c e . Ahme d v . Holde r , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th C ir. 2009). B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t

ua l ba c kground, we ne e d not
re c o unt it he re . W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re v ie w. I The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in de ny ing Pe titione rs’ m otion to
c ontinue , whe re the a ge nc y a s sum e d M s. C a stillo Ga rc i a ’ s prim a fa c ie e ligibility for a Uvisa

in de te rm ining tha

t no good c a

u se e xiste d for a

c ontinua nc e . S e e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.29 (sta

ting tha t a n IJ “ m ay grant a

m otion for c o ntinua

nc e for good
c a use shown” ); A hme d , 569 F.3d a t 1012 (se tting out the

fa c tors to c onside r in a good-c a u se ana ly sis); M

atte r of L-N

-Y- , 27 I. & N. De c . 755, 757–58 (B .I.A. 2020) (holding tha

t prim a fa c ie e ligibility

for a U visa is not dispositive

of good c a

use , pa rtic u la rly whe re the re are “ re le va

nt se c onda

ry fa c t ors tha

t we igh a ga inst
2c ontinuing the proc e e dings” ). II Pe titione rs’ c ounse le d brie f to the B IA did not c ha lle nge the IJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Pe titione rs fa ile d to e sta blish tha t the gove rnm e nt of M e xic o is
una ble or unwilling to c ontrol thepe rse c utors. This issue is de te rm inative of Pe titione rs’ a sy l um and withholding c la im s. Se e Bringas-Rodrigue z v . Se ssions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th C ir. 2017) (e n ba nc ) (a sy lum ); Re

y e s-Re y e s v . Ashc roft , 384 F.3d 782, 788 (9th C ir. 2004) (withholding of re m ova l). B e c a

use the issue
wa s not a dm i nistra

tive l y e x ha uste d , we la c k jurisdic t ion ove r the issue
. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1); Barev . Barr , 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th C i r. 2020) (holding tha t this C ourt la c ks jurisdic t ion to re vie w non-c onstitutiona l c la im s tha

t c o uld ha ve first be e n pre se nte d to the B IA); Zara v
. Ashc roft , 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ A pe titione r c annot sa t isfy the e xha ustion re quire m e nt by m aking a ge ne ra l c h a lle nge to the IJ’ s de c ision, but, ra t he r, m ust spe c ify

whic h issue s form the b a sis of thea

ppe a l.” ). III Pe titione rs’ c ounse le d brie f to the B IA did not c ha lle nge the IJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t M s. C a stillo Ga

rc ia fa ile d to show tha

t it is mo re like ly

tha n not that she would be torture d by or with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the
3gove rnm e nt of M e xic o. Thus, wea lso la c k jurisdic tion ove r the C AT c la im
. Se e 8

U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1); Bare , 975 F.3d a t 960.

IV W e do not re a c h Pe titione rs’ c la im s re ga rding thea ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion be c a

use this c a se c a

n be re solve d ba se d on Pe titione rs’ fa ilure to ra ise the a

bove dispositive

issue s to the B IA. Se e Sime onov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C ir. 2004).

PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

4