eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2023-04

Haro-Aguilar v. Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         APR 28 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAVIER RAFAEL HARO-AGUILAR,                     No.     22-591
Agency No. A202-055-927
Petitioner,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Javier Rafael Haro-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro
se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance and
denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a
*
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).
continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,
    526 F.3d 1243
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2008).
We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
    371 F.3d 532
    , 535 (9th Cir.
2004). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Haro-Aguilar’s motion
for a continuance where he failed to show good cause. See
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.29
    ;
see also Ahmed v. Holder,
    569 F.3d 1009
    , 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors to
consider in good cause analysis); Sandoval-Luna,
    526 F.3d at 1247
     (no abuse of
discretion in denying continuance where relief was not then immediately
available). Haro-Aguilar’s contentions that the agency applied an incorrect
standard, failed to sufficiently explain its decision, and failed to consider
evidence lack merit. See Lata v. INS,
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(error and substantial prejudice are required to prevail on a due process claim).
We decline to reach Haro-Aguilar’s challenges to the agency’s
determination that he failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship that were raised for the first time in his reply brief. See Nguyen v.
Barr,
    983 F.3d 1099
    , 1102 (9th Cir. 2020) (issues raised for the first time in the
reply brief are waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2                                       22-591