Case Name: Jorge M. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-17
Citations: 699 F. App'x 630
Docket Number: No. 13-72761
Parties: Jorge M. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 630–631

Head Matter:
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),

Opinion:
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.