Gerardo Leal-Canete v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 396 F. App'x 359 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            SEP 21 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GERARDO LEAL-CANETE,                             No. 08-71935
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A096-346-384
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 13, 2010 **
    Before:       SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Gerardo Leal-Canete, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal
    and denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
    *
    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).
    § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a request for a
    continuance and we review de novo claims of due process violations in
    immigration proceedings. 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 by denying Leal Canete’s request for
    a continuance because he did not establish good cause for the continuance. See
    Baires v. INS, 
    856 F.2d 89
    , 92-93 (9th Cir. 1988). Leal Canete’s due process claim
    therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
    prejudice and error to prevail on a claim of due process).
    The agency was not required to reach the issue of physical presence, as its
    decision on hardship was dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
    We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal
    on hardship grounds. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 
    424 F.3d 926
    , 930 (9th Cir.
    2005).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    2                                   08-71935
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-71935

Citation Numbers: 396 F. App'x 359

Judges: Silverman, Callahan, Smith

Filed Date: 9/21/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024