eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2018-10

Aaron Sanchez-Cazares v. Jefferson Sessions, III ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AARON SANCHEZ-CAZARES,                           No.   16-72736
Petitioner,                      Agency No. A200-806-501
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before:      SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Aaron Sanchez-Cazares, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal
and his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We
*
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).
review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, and we review for
abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder,
    569 F.3d 1009
    , 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in denying cancellation of removal, where Sanchez-
Cazares admitted that he was convicted of a controlled substance violation. See
Guerrero-Roque v. Lynch,
    845 F.3d 940
    , 941 (9th Cir. 2017) (conviction for an
offense listed in
    8 U.S.C. § 1182
    (a)(2) renders the applicant ineligible for
cancellation of removal);
    8 U.S.C. § 1182
    (a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (listing offenses related to
controlled substance violations).
As Sanchez-Cazares has not applied for asylum or withholding of removal,
the agency did not err in declining to consider whether his crime was particularly
serious. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
    371 F.3d 532
    , 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and
agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues).
The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying for
lack of good cause Sanchez-Cazares’s motion for a continuance, where he was
ineligible for the relief he sought. See
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.29
    ; Sandoval-Luna v.
Mukasey,
    526 F.3d 1243
    , 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (no good cause for continuance
where relief from removal was not available); Colmenar v. INS,
    210 F.3d 967
    , 971
(9th Cir. 2000) (due process claims require showing that proceedings were “so
2                                    16-72736
fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his
case” (internal citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3                                  16-72736