Adriana Marin v. Loretta E. Lynch , 606 F. App'x 396 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 30 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ADRIANA FIERRO MARIN, AKA                        No. 13-72781
    Adriana Fienno Marin and JOSE MARIN-
    MEDINA,                                          Agency Nos.         A098-410-333
    A098-410-334
    Petitioners,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 22, 2015**
    Before:        HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Adriana Fierro Marin and Jose Marin-Medina, natives and citizens of
    Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
    their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their request for a
    *
    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).
    continuance and entering an order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
    U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a
    continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 
    526 F.3d 1243
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per
    curiam). We grant the petition for review and remand.
    The BIA dismissed petitioners’ appeal of the denial of a continuance on the
    sole ground that petitioners were not prima facie eligible for adjustment of status
    because no visa was “immediately available.” To the contrary, petitioners were
    “not required to show prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status to
    demonstrate ‘good cause’ for a continuance.” Ahmed v. Holder, 
    569 F.3d 1009
    ,
    1015 (9th Cir. 2009). Given the BIA’s sole reliance on this ground for affirming
    the denial of the continuance, we remand to allow the agency to consider the
    factors outlined in our case law and its prior decisions relating to continuance
    motions. See 
    id. at 1012-15;
    see also Matter of Rajah, 25 I. & N. Dec. 127, 135-36
    (BIA 2009).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
    2                                    13-72781
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-72781

Citation Numbers: 606 F. App'x 396

Judges: Hawkins, Graber, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/30/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024