Nelson Calis v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON CALIS, AKA Luciano Carlis, No. 18-70926
AKA Nelson Carlis,
Agency No. A092-810-626
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 6, 2020**
Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Calis, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s 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. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Calis’s motion to
continue, where he had been granted nine previous continuances, he repeatedly
failed to cooperate or communicate with his counsel resulting in counsel’s repeated
withdrawal and delays in his case, the IJ advised him of his obligation to file an
application for relief and supporting documentation or risk being ordered removed,
and he failed to submit an application for relief despite having had years to do so.
See Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider when reviewing the
agency’s denial of a continuance); cf. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1294-95 (9th
Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion in denying continuance where IJ failed to warn Cui
that failure to resubmit fingerprints in advance to merits hearing could result in
pretermission of her claim, previous delays were not due to Cui’s conduct, and Cui
was otherwise diligent). Calis’s contention that the agency did not show proper
consideration of all factors is not supported.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 18-70926