Manuel Gonzalez Gomez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL GONZALEZ GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72264
Agency No. A070-921-132
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District
Judge.
Manuel Gonzalez Gomez petitions for review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order
* 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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 8 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
denying a continuance and denying asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual determinations for
substantial evidence, see Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268–69 (9th Cir. 2011),
and the IJ’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion, see Arrey v. Barr, 916
F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2019), we deny the petition for review.
1. The IJ had no obligation to continue the merits hearing so that Gonzalez
Gomez could submit a new declaration in support of his application for asylum.1
The IJ already had provided him 20 months to provide this documentation, and at
the merits hearing, Gonzalez Gomez did not request more time to file a new
declaration. Having no indication that Gonzalez Gomez intended to submit a new
declaration, the IJ did not abuse his discretion by not sua sponte continuing the
merits hearing for that purpose. Cf. Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1105
(9th Cir. 2004).
2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of asylum and withholding
of removal because Gonzalez Gomez’s evidence showed only that he “desire[d] to
1 In his notice of appeal to the BIA, Gonzalez Gomez argued that he “was
not given an opportunity to supplement [his] Political Asylum Petition.” We
assume he referred to supplementing his asylum petition with a new declaration
rather than with an application for cancellation of removal. Otherwise, his claim
here is unexhausted and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by
gang members,” which “bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder,
622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Similarly, his “generalized evidence of
violence and crime in [Guatemala] is not particular to [him] and is insufficient to
meet [the] standard” for CAT protection. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --