Jang Lee v. Loretta Lynch , 671 F. App'x 603 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANG WOO LEE, No. 15-72866
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-883-783
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jang Woo Lee, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying a continuance. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
*
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).
continuance and review de novo claims of due process violations. 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 abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Lee’s request for a third continuance, where the BIA sufficiently provided its
reasons for affirming the IJ’s analysis by citing Matter of Sanchez Sosa, 25 I. & N.
Dec. 807, 812-13 (BIA 2012), and the IJ properly evaluated the factors outlined in
that decision. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009)
(the agency applies the correct legal standard where it expressly cites and applies
relevant case law in rendering its decision); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is merely that [the agency] consider the
issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing
court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation
and quotation marks omitted)); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(to prevail on a due process claim, a petitioner must show error and prejudice).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lee’s unexhausted contentions regarding
right to counsel and ineffective assistance of counsel. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (8 U.S.C. Ҥ 1252(d)(1) mandates exhaustion and
2 15-72866
therefore generally bars us, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, from reaching
the merits of a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-72866