Jose Ascencion-Castro v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ASCENCION-CASTRO, AKA Jose No. 19-71400
Acesion-Castro, AKA Christian Ronald
Clegg, Agency No. A202-014-952
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Ascencion-Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand
and his motion to terminate, and dismissing his appeal from an immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008), the
denial of a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.
2005), and the denial of a motion to terminate, Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725,
734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse its discretion in denying Ascencion-Castro’s motion for
a continuance. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (denial of continuance was
not an abuse of discretion where the record did not establish petitioner’s present
eligibility for relief); see also Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I. & N. Dec. 807, 812-15
(BIA 2012) (discussing how a movant may establish prima facie eligibility for a U
visa such that good cause for a continuance might be established).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ascencion-Castro’s motion
to remand where Ascencion-Castro may pursue a U visa with a removal order in
place. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(c)(1)(ii).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying administrative closure. See
Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 891-93 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding the
non-exhaustive list of factors in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA
2012), provides a standard for reviewing administrative closure decisions).
2 19-71400
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to terminate,
where Ascencion-Castro’s contentions regarding his notice to appear are
foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack
of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the
immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-71400