Mario Garcia-Delgado v. Loretta E. Lynch , 633 F. App'x 388 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 27 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO GARCIA-DELGADO, No. 14-72080
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-682-006
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Mario Garcia-Delgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (‘IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
denial of a continuance, Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015), and
review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations, Mohammed
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Delgado’s motion
for a continuance to seek post-conviction relief where he failed to show good
cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for
good cause shown); Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.
2008) (the denial of a continuance was within the agency’s discretion where relief
was not immediately available to the petitioner). Accordingly, Garcia-Delgado’s
due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
The agency applied the correct legal standard in deciding Garcia-Delgado’s
motion to continue, where the agency invoked the applicable “good cause” legal
standard and cited pertinent legal authorities. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552
F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the agency applies the correct legal
standard where it expressly cites and applies relevant case law in rendering its
decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-72080