Salvador Ramirez-Diaz v. Loretta E. Lynch , 610 F. App'x 709 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 29 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR RAMIREZ-DIAZ, No. 13-72091
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-649-733
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.
Salvador Ramirez-Diaz, 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 denial of his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
*
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).
continuance, and review de novo claims of due process violations. 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 Ramirez-Diaz’s request
for a further continuance because he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors
considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse
of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the denial).
Accordingly, Ramirez-Diaz’s claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing
and deprived of his statutory right to counsel must fail. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
We reject Ramirez-Diaz’s contention that the BIA’s decision was
insufficient, where the agency invoked the applicable “good cause” legal standard
and cited pertinent legal authorities. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th
Cir. 2010) (agency need not “write an exegesis on every contention”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-72091