Victor Garcia Pantoja v. Loretta E. Lynch , 632 F. App'x 345 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 25 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR HUGO GARCIA PANTOJA, No. 13-73503
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-718-852
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.
Victor Hugo Garcia Pantoja, 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 (“IJ”) denial of a continuance. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
*
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).
for a continuance and review de novo constitutional 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 or violate Garcia Pantoja’s due
process rights by denying a continuance, where Garcia Pantoja failed to establish
eligibility for any relief from removal. See id. at 1247 (no abuse of discretion in
denying a motion for a continuance where the relief sought was not available to
petitioner); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due
process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).
Contrary to Garcia Pantoja’s contention, the BIA provided sufficient
reasoning and detail in affirming the IJ’s denial of a continuance. See Najmabadi
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is merely that [the
BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to
enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely
reacted.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73503