Dharmesh Patel v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 547 F. App'x 855 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DHARMESH BALUBHAI PATEL, No. 12-72230
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-176-625
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Dharmesh Balubhai Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the decision of an
immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Patel’s motion to continue his removal
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to continue, 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Patel’s motion to
continue in order to wait for an employment-based immigrant visa to become
available to him, where he failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance. See
Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (rejecting an abuse-of-discretion challenge to an
IJ’s refusal to continue removal proceedings where “no relief was then
immediately available”).
The agency also applied the correct legal criteria and provided a reasoned
explanation for its decision denying Patel’s motion to continue, where the agency
invoked the applicable “good cause” legal standard and cited pertinent legal
authorities. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009)
(concluding that “the IJ applied the correct legal standard” where “the IJ expressly
cited and applied [relevant case law] in rendering its decision, which is all our
review requires”).
2 12-72230
We lack jurisdiction to consider Patel’s unexhausted contention that the IJ
failed to redress the harm from the agency’s earlier finding of frivolousness in his
asylum application. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-72230