Josue Cervantes-Cisneros v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 553 F. App'x 746 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSUE CERVANTES-CISNEROS, No. 12-73721
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-752-432
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Josue Cervantes-Cisneros, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to
continue. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
*
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).
of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,
526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and review de novo whether the
agency applied a correct legal standard, Florez-de Solis v. INS, 796 F.2d 330, 333
(9th Cir. 1986). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Cervantes-Cisneros’s
motion for a continuance to seek post-conviction relief in state court, because
Cervantes-Cisneros failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance. See Singh
v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n IJ ‘may grant a motion for
continuance for good cause shown.’” (citation omitted)). Cervantes-Cisneros
conceded his inadmissibility and ineligibility for relief from removal, and collateral
post-conviction relief remained a merely speculative possibility at the time of his
final hearing. See id. (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based
on . . . speculations.”); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (rejecting a
challenge to an IJ’s denial of a continuance where “no relief was then immediately
available”).
The BIA applied the correct legal standard to Cervantes-Cisneros’s request
for a continuance. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.
2009) (concluding that “the IJ applied the correct legal standard” in a case where
2 12-73721
“the IJ expressly cited and applied [relevant case law] in rendering its decision,
which is all our review requires”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73721