Jaime Meza-Rivas v. Loretta Lynch , 674 F. App'x 767 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME FABIAN MEZA-RIVAS, AKA No. 15-71882
Jaime Mezarivais, AKA Jaime Fabian
Mezarivas, AKA Jaime F. Mezrevias, Agency No. A205-297-149
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Fabian Meza-Rivas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying a continuance and entering an order of
*
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).
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo due process claims.
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by denying
Meza-Rivas’ motion for a continuance for lack of good cause, where Meza-Rivas
had the opportunity to research and incorporate recent developments regarding
social group claims, and future changes in the law remained speculative. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause);
Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (considering the nature of
the evidence excluded and the reasonableness of petitioner’s conduct); Singh v.
Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a
continuance based on . . . speculations.”); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000).
Meza-Rivas’ motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 20) and
supplemental motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 22) are denied as
moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-71882