Mario Lua Quintero v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO LUA QUINTERO, No. 11-73539
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-284-976
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Mario Lua Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from a decision of
an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to continue his removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of
*
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).
discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,
526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Lua Quintero’s motion to
continue to wait for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to
adjudicate his request for prosecutorial discretion, because he failed to demonstrate
good cause for a continuance. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir.
2011) (“[A]n IJ ‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’”
(citation omitted)). Lua Quintero had already received one prior continuance for
this purpose, he had conceded the charge of inadmissibility and his ineligibility for
all relief from removal except voluntary departure, DHS opposed an additional
continuance, and the basis for the motion remained a mere speculative possibility
at the time of his hearing. See id. (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance
based on . . . speculations.”); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (rejecting
an abuse-of-discretion challenge to an IJ’s refusal to continue removal proceedings
where “no relief was then immediately available”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-73539