Adrian Olivares-Garcia v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 575 F. App'x 812 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIAN OLIVARES-GARCIA, No. 12-74131
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-738-939
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Adrian Olivares-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal
from the decisions of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his motions for a
continuance of his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance,
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and
review de novo due process claims and questions of law, Cruz Rendon v. Holder,
603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010) (due process claims); Simeonov v. Ashcroft,
371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004) (questions of law). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying for lack of good cause
Olivares-Garcia’s motions for a continuance to wait for the government’s
adjudication of his request for prosecutorial discretion and for passage of
immigration-reform legislation. 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)). Olivares-Garcia conceded his removability and
ineligibility for any relief from removal under current law, and the bases for the
motions remained merely speculative possibilities at the time of his final removal
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 a challenge to
an IJ’s denial of a continuance where “no relief was then immediately available”).
The agency applied the correct legal standard to Olivares-Garcia’s motions.
See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that
2 12-74131
“the IJ applied the correct legal standard” in a case where “the IJ expressly cited
and applied [relevant case law] in rendering its decision, which is all our review
requires”).
Olivares-Garcia’s claim that the denial of his motions for a continuance
violated his due process rights lacks merit because he failed to demonstrate
prejudice. See Cruz Rendon, 603 F.3d at 1109 (“In order to prevail on [a due
process] claim, the alien . . . must show prejudice, ‘which means that the outcome
of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.’” (citation
omitted)); see also Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2010)
(identifying no prejudice from the denial of a continuance where the petitioner was
“currently ineligible” for relief from removal).
In light of this disposition, we need not consider the BIA’s determination
that Olivares-Garcia had abandoned his challenge to the IJ’s decision of
December 12, 2011. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538 (“As a general rule courts . . .
are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to
the results they reach.” (citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-74131