Javier Ramirez Salasar v. Loretta E. Lynch , 667 F. App'x 902 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAVIER RAMIREZ SALASAR, AKA No. 14-73562
Javier Ramirez, AKA Javier Ramirez-
Salazar, Agency No. A092-877-458
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Javier Ramirez Salasar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order denying cancellation of removal and denying his motion
*
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).
to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo questions of law.
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of 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 err in denying cancellation of removal for failure to
establish lawful admission, where substantial evidence supports the agency’s
finding that Ramirez Salasar did not perform agricultural work in the U.S. during
the qualifying time period to qualify for permanent resident status under the
Seasonal Agricultural Workers program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1) (requiring an
alien to have been “lawfully permitted for permanent residence for not less than
five years” to be granted cancellation of removal); Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d
1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although an alien may have been admitted for
permanent residence, he has not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence if
he was precluded from obtaining permanent resident status due to an inability to
meet the prerequisites.” (emphasis in original)).
2 14-73562
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand or
in declining to grant a continuance, where Ramirez Salasar did not establish prima
facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (motion to reopen can be denied for “failure to establish a
prima facie case for the relief sought” (citation and quotation marks omitted));
Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (listing factors to consider
when reviewing the denial of a continuance); see also Matter of Hashmi, 24 I. &
N. Dec. 785, 790 (BIA 2009) (focus of the inquiry when determining whether to
grant a continuance is the apparent ultimate likelihood of success).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73562