Cruz-Vargas v. Holder , 387 F. App'x 690 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANTONIO CRUZ-VARGAS, No. 08-70169
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-443-346
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Antonio Cruz-Vargas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v.
*
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).
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion for a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243,
1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA properly concluded that Cruz-Vargas was ineligible for Temporary
Protected Status because he failed to establish the continuous physical presence
and continuous residence requirements for nationals of El Salvador. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1254a(c)(1)(A)(i)-(ii); see also 73 Fed. Reg. 57131 (Oct. 1, 2008). It follows that
Cruz-Vargas’ due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process
claim).
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Cruz-Vargas’ motion to
continue where his relief was speculative. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247(denial of a motion to continue was not an abuse of discretion where relief was not
immediately available to petitioner).
Cruz-Vargas’ remaining contention is unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-70169