N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE DE JESUS GUTIER REZGUTIER REZ, Pe titione r, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-71822 Age n c y No. A088-751-106 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 Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Jose de Je sus Gutierre z -Gutie rre z , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe t itions for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, prote c t ion unde r the C o nve ntion Agai nst Torture 

# FIL ED JAN 29 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ C AT” ) a

nd c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l, a

nd de ny i ng his motion to c ontinue . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings a nd re vie w de novo que stions of la w. He nrique

zRiv a s v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081, 1087 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ). W e re vie w for a buse o f disc re tion the de n i a l of a m o tion to c o ntinue . Sandoval-Luna v . Muk ase y , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th C ir. 2008). W e dismiss in pa rt, de ny in pa rt, a nd gra nt in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w, a nd we re m and. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Gutie rre z -Gutie rre z ’ s une xha uste d c onte ntions re g arding theIJ’ s sta te m e nts re late d to his unla wful e ntry . Se eBarron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). W e othe rwise la c k jurisdic t ion to c onside r the a ge n c y ’ s de nia l of c an c e lla t ion of re m ova l ba se d on its discre tiona ry ha rdship de te rm inat ion. Se eDeMe rc ado v . Muk ase y , 566 F.3d 810, 815-16 (9th C ir. 2009). W e re

je c t Gutie rre z -Gutie rre z ’ s c onte ntion tha t the a ge nc y a

pplie d a n inc o rre c t sta nda rd in its a na l y sis of c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l . The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion by

de ny ing Gutierre z -Gutie rre z ’ s m otion for a

c o ntinua nc e , whe re he fa ile d to de m onstra te good c a

use . Se e Sandoval-Luna , 526 F.3d a t 1246.

1 1 - 7 1 8 2 2

2Gutie rre z -Gutie rre zdoe s not c onte st theB IA’ s de te rm i nation tha t he fa ile d to c h a lle nge the IJ’ s finding tha t his a sy l um

a pplic ation wa s tim e -ba

rre d. Thus, we de ny the pe tition for re vie wa s to Gutie rre z -Gutie rre z ’ s a sy lum c la im . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a use Gutie rre z -Gutie rre zfa i le d to e sta blish tha t it is more like ly

tha n not hewill be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c q uie s c e n c e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to M e x ic o. Se eSilay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). In de ny ing Gutierre z -Gutie rre z ’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im , howe ve r, the a ge nc y found tha

t he fa ile d to e sta

blish a like lihood of future

pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. W he n the IJ a

nd B IA issue d the i r de c isions in this c a se , the y did not ha

ve the be ne fit of this c ourt’ s de c isions in He nrique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ), C ordoba v . Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106 (9th C ir. 2013), a

nd P irir-Boc

v . Holde r , 750 F.3d 1077 (9th C ir. 2014), or the B IA’ s de c isions in Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227 (B IA 2014), a nd Matte r of W -G-R- , 26 I. & N. De c . 208 (B IA 2014). Thus, we re m and Gutie rre z Gutie rre z ’ s withholding of re m ova l c la i m

to de te rm ine the im

p a c t, if a ny , of the se de c isions. Se eIN

S v . Ve n tura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (pe r c uriam ). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts for this petition for re vie w .

1 1 - 7 1 8 2 2

3PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDISM ISSE D in par t; DE NIE D in par t;

G RANT E D in par t; RE M ANDE D.

1 1 - 7 1 8 2 2 4