Chavez-montejano v. Holder , 382 F. App'x 558 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 03 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ANTONIO CHAVEZ-MONTEJANO,                        Nos. 08-70021
    a.k.a. Antonio Chavez,                                08-73384
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A075-098-140
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of Orders of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    In these consolidated petitions, Antonio Chavez-Montejano, a native and
    citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
    (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reissue its previous decision and the order
    dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision to deny him a
    *
    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).
    continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
    discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Cano-Merida v. INS, 
    311 F.3d 960
    ,
    964 (9th Cir. 2002), and the denial of a motion to continue, see Sandoval-Luna v.
    Mukasey, 
    526 F.3d 1243
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny the petitions
    for review.
    The BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reissue its August 29,
    2006, order where the record indicates the order was mailed to Chavez-
    Montejano’s counsel’s address of record, see Haroutunian v. INS, 
    87 F.3d 374
    ,
    375-76 (9th Cir. 1996) (a properly addressed cover letter creates a presumption of
    mailing on the date of the cover letter), and Chavez-Montejano has not submitted
    sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of receipt, cf. Singh v. Gonzales,
    
    494 F.3d 1170
    , 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2007); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).
    The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Chavez-Montejano’s
    motion for a continuance because Chavez-Montejano did not demonstrate good
    cause. See 
    Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1246-47
    ; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.
    PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    08-70021
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-70021, 08-73384

Citation Numbers: 382 F. App'x 558

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/3/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024