Kuan-Yi Chen v. Matthew Whitaker ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 12 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    KUAN-YI CHEN, AKA Kuanyi Chen,                  No.    15-72031
    AKA Pangzi Chen,
    Agency No. A205-346-897
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
    Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted October 10, 2018
    University of Hawaii Manoa
    Before: WARDLAW, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Kuan-Yi Chen (Chen), a native and citizen of Taiwan who resides in the
    Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), petitions for review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration
    Judge’s (IJ) denial of a continuance and of administrative closure. We have
    jurisdiction pursuant to 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review questions of law de novo and
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    findings of fact for substantial evidence, Cui v. Mukasey, 
    538 F.3d 1289
    , 1290 (9th
    Cir. 2008), and we review denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion, Ahmed
    v. Holder, 
    569 F.3d 1009
    , 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
    1.     The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of a continuance to
    give Chen more time to file an application for parole through his U.S. citizen
    daughter. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that any potential
    relief was speculative. Chen had previously applied for parole, but he was denied
    that relief in 2012 after failing to respond to a request that he submit proof of his
    marriage and proof of legal presence in CNMI. Given this and Chen’s conviction
    under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1324
    (a)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(i) for harboring aliens for financial
    gain, the BIA did not err in concluding it was unlikely Chen would be eligible for a
    favorable exercise of discretion, and thus had not shown “good cause” to warrant a
    continuance. 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.29
    ; see An Na Peng v. Holder, 
    673 F.3d 1248
    , 1253
    (9th Cir. 2012) (“The regulations do not define good cause, but the IJ—and, on
    appeal, the BIA—should consider factors including (1) the nature of the evidence
    excluded as a result of the denial of the continuance, (2) the reasonableness of the
    immigrant’s conduct, (3) the inconvenience to the court, and (4) the number of
    continuances previously granted.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
    2.     The BIA did not err in denying Chen administrative closure to allow
    him to apply for parole. Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 
    882 F.3d 885
    , 890-91 (9th
    2
    Cir. 2018). There was substantial evidence that relief was speculative because of
    Chen’s previous denial of parole, his conviction for harboring aliens for financial
    gain, and the lack of any pending application for parole or other relief.
    PETITION DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-72031

Filed Date: 2/12/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/12/2019