Martin Correa v. Loretta E. Lynch , 670 F. App'x 519 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN CORREA, AKA Martin Correa No. 14-72546
Caballero, AKA Martin Rosalio Correa,
Agency No. A093-377-134
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Martin Correa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due
*
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).
process violations, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a
continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
We reject Correa’s due process claim that his merits hearing was scheduled
too close to the master calendar hearing, and as a result he had inadequate time to
submit more evidence of the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal.
Correa’s attorney did not object to the scheduling of the merits hearing date or
request a continuance to gather additional evidence, and he has not established any
resulting prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Correa does not raise any other challenge to the agency’s discretionary
determination that he failed to show the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative
for cancellation of removal. Thus we do not consider Correa’s contentions
regarding good moral character because his failure to establish hardship is
dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538
(9th Cir. 2004) (the court need not reach a contention when another dispositive
determination has been made).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause
Correa’s request for a continuance to await the promulgation of a regulation that
2 14-72546
might have benefitted him. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance
for good cause shown); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“[An] IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on . . . speculations.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72546