Juan Miranda-Sanchez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 485 F. App'x 242 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            OCT 12 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JUAN MIRANDA-SANCHEZ,                            No. 11-71694
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A098-383-065
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    October 9, 2012 **
    Before:        RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Juan Miranda-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
    of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming the
    decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) to deny Miranda-Sanchez’s motion to
    continue his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
    *
    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).
    Reviewing for an abuse of discretion an IJ’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 IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Miranda-Sanchez’s motion to
    continue because Miranda-Sanchez did not demonstrate good cause for a
    continuance, see Ahmed v. Holder, 
    569 F.3d 1009
    , 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A]n IJ
    ‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’” (citation omitted)),
    where, at the time of the hearing, Miranda-Sanchez’s eligibility for adjustment of
    status remained only a remote possibility due to the current unavailability of a visa
    based on his fourth-preference family-sponsored visa petition, see 8 U.S.C.
    § 1255(i)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(g)(1); see also 
    Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247
    (finding that the IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying a continuance
    because, among other reasons, relief from removal in the form of adjustment of
    status was not immediately available to the petitioner at the time of the hearing);
    Matter of Rajah, 25 I. & N. Dec. 127, 136 (BIA 2009) (holding that an immigrant
    who has a prima facie approvable visa petition and application for adjustment of
    status may not be able to show good cause for a continuance if visa availability is
    too remote).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                   11-71694
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-71694

Citation Numbers: 485 F. App'x 242

Judges: Rawlinson, Murguia, Watford

Filed Date: 10/12/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024