Maria Mendoza De Ramirez v. Jefferson Sessions , 677 F. App'x 446 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA GUADALUPE MENDOZA DE No. 15-72274
RAMIREZ,
Agency No. A096-350-900
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Maria Guadalupe Mendoza de Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying a continuance, denying
*
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).
cancellation of removal, and ordering her removed. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance
and review de novo due process claims and questions of law. Sandoval-Luna v.
Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Mendoza de
Ramirez’s request for a continuance for failure to show good cause, where she had
been granted several continuances over more than three years and was unable to
demonstrate the continuous residence required for cancellation of removal. See 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(a); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Medina-Nunez v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 1103
(9th Cir. 2015) (acceptance into Family Unity Program did not constitute being
“admitted” for purposes of cancellation of removal). Accordingly, to the extent
Mendoza de Ramirez raises a due process claim, it fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza de Ramirez’s unexhausted
contentions regarding mandatory withdrawal of counsel or alleged ineffective
assistance of her prior counsel. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004).
2 15-72274
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-72274