Jose Reyes-Lomeli v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALONSO REYES-LOMELI, Nos. 17-70060
16-72760
Petitioner,
Agency No. A098-930-851
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Alonso Reyes-Lomeli, a
native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying his request for a continuance, and denying his motion to reopen.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
agency’s denial of a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.
2009), and denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986
(9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petitions for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Reyes-Lomeli’s request for an additional continuance, for failure to show good
cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
Reyes-Lomeli conceded removability, he had been granted several prior
continuances, he submitted no evidence that a visa petition had been filed on his
behalf, and he has not addressed the IJ’s determination that he abandoned his
applications for cancellation of removal and asylum. See Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012(listing factors to consider); Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2008) (denial of a continuance was within the agency’s discretion where relief
was not immediately available to petitioner).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Reyes-Lomeli’s motion to
reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of removal, where
he did not submit any hardship evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (the BIA
can deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief
sought); Patel v. INS, 741 F.2d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[I]n the context of a
2 17-70060
motion to reopen, the BIA is not required to consider allegations unsupported by
affidavits or other evidentiary material.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). We reject
Reyes-Lomeli’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in
denying the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-70060