NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BHARAT BHUSAN ,

Petitioner ,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR , Attorney General,

Respondent

. No. 19

- 70165

A gency No. A 216

- 2 76

- 000

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12 , 2020 * * San Francisco , California
Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ , Circuit Judges, and BURGESS, *** District Judge.

* 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 Timothy M. Burgess, United States Chief District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 26 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 70165

Petitioner Bharat Bhushan, 1 a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing h is appeal from

a decision of an i mmigration j udge (“IJ”) den ying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review

. 1. Petitioner contends that the IJ violated his right to due process by denying his motion to continue his merits hearing. “ A n IJ ’ s denial of a motion for
continuance is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ” Sandoval

- Luna v. Mukasey , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008)

. To determin e whether an IJ has abused his
d iscretion, we must consider multiple factors, including: “ (1) the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the denial of the continuance; (2) the reasonableness of the immigrant ’ s conduct; (3) the inconvenience to the court; and (4) the number
of con tinuances previously granted. ” Cruz Rendon v. Holder , 603 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2010)

. Petitioner has not identified any evidence that was excluded as a result of the
denial

. 2 With respect to the reasonableness of P etitioner ’s conduct, P etitioner

1 Although P etitioner’s last name is spelled “Bhusan” in the case c aption , throughout P etitioner’s brief and the administrative record the spelling “Bhushan” predominates.

2 In fact, to avoid excluding material evidence, t he IJ allowed P etitioner an additional 28 days after the merits hearing to submit supporting documen tary evidence.3 19

- 70165

retain ed counsel only seven to ten days before the hearing , despite receiv ing four prior continuances over four months to secure counsel. Having considered the relevant factors, we find that the IJ did not abuse his discretion , and that Petitioner was not prevented “from fully and fairly presenting” his case. Cruz Rendon , 603
F.3d at 1111

. Petitioner also a rgues that the IJ violated his right to due process by

pre - judging the case. But, having reviewed the record, we find that the IJ was a

“ neutral fact

- finder interested in hearing the petitioner ’ s evidence .” Colmenar v.
I.N.S. , 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000)

. 2. Next , we turn to Petitioner ’ s arguments that the BIA erroneously denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. “We review the BIA ’ s denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the
record co nsidered as a whole.” Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
S ubstantial evidence supports the BIA ’ s determination that P etitioner can safely relocate within India and it would be reasonable for hi m to do so , the basis on
which asylum and withholding of removal was denied

. See Kaiser v. Ashcroft , 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th Cir. 2004) ; see also 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13(b)(1)(i)(B), 1208.16(b)(1)(i)(B)

. Additionally , substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that P etitioner is ineligible for CAT relief because he has not4 19

- 70165

demonstrated that he more likely than not would face torture upon his return to India

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) , (3)

. The petition for review is DENIED
.