Juan Palacios-Galvan v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN PALACIOS-GALVAN,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74462
Agency No. A200-630-757
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Juan Palacios-Galvan, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-74462
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance,
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d
1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Palacios-Galvan’s motion
for a continuance to wait for the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform.
See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (quoting De la Cruz v. INS, 951 F.2d 226,
229 (9th Cir. 1991) (no abuse of discretion in denying a continuance where the
relief sought was not immediately available)).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief based on
Palacios-Galvan’s failure to demonstrate a particularized threat that he would be
tortured. See Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam) (evidence of generalized violence insufficient to establish petitioner
“would face [a] particular threat of torture beyond that of which all citizens of [the
country] are at risk”). We reject Palacios-Galvan’s contentions that the agency
failed to consider record evidence or that its analysis was deficient. Thus,
Palacios-Galvan’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --