Rigoberto Santiz Gomez v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIGOBERTO SANTIZ GOMEZ, AKA No. 18-70975
Gerardo Luis Francisco Diego,
Agency No. A095-793-679
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rigoberto Santiz Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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 continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.
2008). We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations
in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Santiz Gomez’s motion
for a continuance where he failed to show good cause. See Sandoval-Luna, 526
F.3d at 1247 (“[t]he decision to grant or deny a continuance is in the sound
discretion of the judge and will not be overturned except on a showing of clear
abuse” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Santiz
Gomez’s contention, Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018) does
not affect the analysis of the motion to continue in his case. See id. at 405-06. We
therefore decline to remand for consideration of Matter of L-A-B-R-.
We also reject Santiz Gomez’s contentions that the IJ violated his due
process rights by not explaining the availability of asylum and related relief or pre-
conclusion voluntary departure. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d
2 18-70975
1174, 1176-77 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court’s jurisdiction over challenges to the denial
of voluntary departure is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 18-70975