N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NOE C ALIXTO B LAS,

Pe t i tione r, v. R OB ER T M . W ILKINSON, Ac ting Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-70236 Age n c y No. A216-183-035 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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 1, 2021 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : TASHIM A, R

AW LINSON, a

nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s . Pe titione r C a lixto B la s re que sts re v i e w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l’ s (B IA’ s) de c ision a ffirm ing a n Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ’ s) de nia l of his a pplic ation for a s y lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture . C a lixto B l a s a rgue s, inte r alia , tha

t the IJ viola

te d 

# FIL ED MAR 8 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.due proc e ss by de ny i ng his re que st for a c ontinua nc e to se c ure c ounse l, a

n d the B IA e rre d in a ffirm ing tha t de nia l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wc l a im s of due proc e ss viola tions denovo, Lianhua J

iang v . Holde r , 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th C ir. 2014), a nd de n ia l of a

c ontinua nc e for a b use of disc re tion, Ahme d v . Holde r , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th C ir. 2009). W e grant the pe tition a nd re m and to thea g e nc y . 1 At C a lixto B la s’ s he a

ring on the m e rits of his a s y lum and withholding a pplic ation, hewithdre w his prior wai ve r of c o unse l by re que sting a

“ c ontinua

nc e ” so he c ould bere pre se nte d by an attorne y . Afte r m inim a l inquiry , the IJ de nie d the re que s t a n d re quire d C a l ixto B la s to proc e e d pro se . In the a bse nc e of a

knowing a

nd volunta

ry wa ive r of the right to c ounse l,

“ the IJ m ust inquirewhe the r the re is good c a use to gra nt pe titione r m ore tim e to obta in c ounse l.” B iw ot v . Gonzale s , 403 F.3d 1094, 1100 (9th C i r. 2005); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.29. The

IJ he re did not do so. Se eBiw ot , 403 F.3d a t 1099 (Good c a

use fa c t ors inc lude “ the re a listic tim e ne c e ssa ry to obta i n c ounse l; the tim e fram e of the re que s ts for c ounse l ; the num be r of c ontinua

nc e s; a ny ba rrie rs tha t frustra te d [his] e fforts to obtain c ounse l , suc h a s be i ng inc arc e rat e d or a n ina bility to spe ak

1 B e c a use we c onc lude that the IJ e rre d in de ny ing C a lixto B l a s a c ontinua nc e to finish se c uring c ounse l, we ne e d not a ddre ss the re m a inde r of the pe tition a nd de c line to do so. 2English; a

nd whe the r [he ] a

ppe ars to be de la

y i ng in ba d fa ith.” ). B e c a use the IJ fa ile d to inquire furthe r a s to C a lixto B la s’ s c irc um sta n c e s a nd pote ntia l good c a use for the re que s te d c ontinua nc e , the IJ a

buse d his disc re t ion in de ny ing the re que s t. Se eid. Wh e n a

n a lie n ha s be e n de nie d

an attorne y

at the m e rits he aring, we pre sum e pre

j udic e and re m and is a

utom atic . Se eMonte

s-Lope z v . Holde r , 694 F.3d 1085, 1093–94 (9th C i r. 2012). PE T IT IO N G RANT E D; RE M ANDE D.

3