Rigoberto Ramirez-Juarez v. Jefferson Sessions , 702 F. App'x 659 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIGOBERTO RAMIREZ-JUAREZ, No. 15-72641
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-624-708
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Rigoberto Ramirez-Juarez, 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 a motion to continue. Our jurisdiction
is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s
*
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).
denial of a motion to continue, and review de novo constitutional claims. See
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Ramirez-Juarez’s motion for a fourth continuance, where the IJ advised him that
no further continuances would be granted, and he failed to establish good cause.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause
shown”); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Juarez’s unexhausted contention
that the agency failed to properly analyze his motion for a fourth continuance. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to
consider a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-72641