Alexander Novikov v. Jefferson Sessions , 692 F. App'x 913 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEXANDER VLADIMIROVICH No. 15-73321
NOVIKOV,
Agency No. A200-264-343
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Alexander Vladimirovich Novikov, a native and citizen of Russia, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
*
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).
a motion for a continuance, and review de novo due process claims. Sandoval-
Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Novikov’s request for an
additional continuance where he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors
considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse
of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded and the number of
continuances previously granted). Contrary to Novikov’s contention, the agency
did not ignore relevant precedent or factors in denying his request.
Novikov’s due process claims fail for lack of prejudice. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to
prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-73321