Jae Park v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 475 F. App'x 251 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAE WOO PARK, No. 11-70445
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-244-923
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012 **
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jae Woo Park, a native and citizen of Korea, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance and application for
cancellation for removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, Karapetyan v.
Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), superseded by statute on other
grounds as stated in Owino v. Holder, 575 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam), and review de novo questions of law, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th
Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Park’s motion for a
continuance where he had known about his hearing date for nine months and had
previously been granted three continuances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ has
authority to grant a continuance upon a showing of good cause); Karapetyan, 543
F.3d at 1129.
Park did not show he was prejudiced by the absence of counsel at his first
hearing where he admitted the charge of removability or at his later merits hearing
where he did not show sufficient hardship to qualify for cancellation of removal, in
that he failed to show how the presence of counsel may have affected the outcome
of his proceedings. See Ram v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1238, 1242-43 (“To
demonstrate prejudice, and thus a denial of due process, [petitioner] must show that
the denial of his right to counsel potentially affected the outcome of the
proceedings.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-70445