Felicisima Espinosa v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELICISIMA ALBIOLA ESPINOSA, No. 11-72495
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-224-046
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Felicisima Albiola Espinosa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, and
*
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).
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 in denying a continuance, where
Albiola Espinosa had already been given three continuances and she did not show
good cause for an additional continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant
a motion for a continuance for good cause shown). Albiola Espinosa’s contention
that the IJ did not consider all the facts presented is belied by the record.
To the extent Albiola Espinosa is making a due process claim, it therefore
fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due
process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-72495