Pedro Vasquez-Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch , 611 F. App'x 458 ( 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2015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
PEDRO VASQUEZ-GARCIA, AKA No. 13-72711
Chero Garcia-Garcia, AKA David
Martinez-Cuevas, Agency No. A200-808-953
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
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.
Pedro Vasquez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying a continuance and cancellation of removal.
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a continuance, and review de novo claims of due process
violations. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vasquez-Garcia’s request
for a continuance where he failed to demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29; Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247. It follows that Vasquez-Garcia’s
claim that the denial of a continuance violated due process fails. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, alien
must show error and prejudice).
The BIA did not violate due process or err in declining to address Vasquez-
Garcia’s contentions regarding continuous physical presence because its
determination that he failed to establish the requisite hardship was dispositive. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246; see also Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule, courts and agencies are not
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the
results they reach.”) (citation omitted).
2 13-72711
To the extent Vasquez-Garcia challenges the agency’s discretionary
determination that he failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to
his two United States citizen children, we lack jurisdiction to review this
determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-72711