Israel Bonilla v. Loretta E. Lynch , 645 F. App'x 551 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 23 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ISRAEL BONILLA,                                  No. 14-71974
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A094-206-073
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted March 15, 2016**
    Before:        GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Israel Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying a continuance. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
    *
    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).
    a motion for a continuance. Cui v. Mukasey, 
    538 F.3d 1289
    , 1290 (9th Cir. 2008).
    We deny the petition for review.
    The agency did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Bonilla a further
    continuance to allow him to submit his fingerprints for biometric analysis, where
    the IJ instructed Bonilla orally and in writing of the deadline for being
    fingerprinted and of the consequences of failure to meet the deadline, and where
    Bonilla failed to present good cause for his failure to comply. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.47
    (c) (“Failure to file necessary documentation and comply with the
    requirements to provide biometrics . . . within the time allowed by the immigration
    judge’s order, constitutes abandonment of the application and the immigration
    judge may enter an appropriate order dismissing the application unless the
    applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause.”); cf. Cui,
    
    538 F.3d at 1293-95
     (requiring a continuance where the alien did not receive
    adequate notice of the requirement to submit fingerprints).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   14-71974
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-71974

Citation Numbers: 645 F. App'x 551

Judges: Christen, Goodwin, Leavy

Filed Date: 3/23/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024