Carlos Rivas-Canas v. Loretta E. Lynch , 641 F. App'x 769 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ALBERTO RIVAS-CANAS, No. 14-72418
AKA Carlos A. Canas,
Agency No. A205-311-538
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Alberto Rivas-Canas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying a continuance. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
*
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).
a motion for a continuance, and review de novo claims of due process violations.
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivas-Canas’ request for
a seventh continuance for failure to demonstrate good cause, where Rivas-Canas
had been granted previous continuances, failed to file any applications for relief by
the IJ’s deadlines, and failed to provide sufficient evidence of eligibility for relief.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“When reviewing an IJ’s denial of a continuance, we consider a number of
factors, including: (1) the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the denial
of the continuance, (2) the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct, (3) the
inconvenience to the court, and (4) the number of continuances previously
granted.” (citations omitted)).
Rivas-Canas’ contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to
provide a reasoned explanation for its decision is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-72418