Artemio Vasquez Peralta v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 571 F. App'x 527 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           APR 23 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ARTEMIO VASQUEZ PERALTA,                         No. 12-71171
    CIRIA VIVAR REYES,
    Agency Nos.        A077-233-916
    Petitioners,                                         A099-367-431
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted April 16, 2014**
    Before:        GOULD, BERZON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Artemio Vasquez Peralta and Ciria Vivar Reyes, natives and citizens of
    Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
    dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
    *
    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).
    their request for a continuance and denying their applications for cancellation of
    removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
    discretion the denial of a continuance, and review de novo questions of law. Cui v.
    Mukasey, 
    538 F.3d 1289
    , 1290 (9th Cir. 2008). With respect to Vasquez Peralta’s
    claims, we deny the petition. With respect to Vivar Reyes’ claims, we grant the
    petition and remand her claim for cancellation.
    The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate Vasquez Peralta’s statutory
    right to counsel in denying his request for a continuance, where he had conceded
    that he was not eligible for any form of relief. See Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 
    526 F.3d 1243
    , 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (denial of a motion to continue was not an abuse
    of discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner). It follows
    that Vasquez Peralta’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    ,
    1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
    The agency did, however, abuse its discretion in denying Vivar Reyes’
    request for a continuance to allow her to obtain new counsel. The IJ scheduled two
    hearings for the purpose of allowing Vivar Reyes’ United States citizen children to
    testify in support of her cancellation claim. Vivar Reyes’ former attorney failed to
    appear at either hearing. He also failed to submit affidavits for the children by the
    2
    date specified, even though the IJ had stated that such submission was a
    prerequisite to hearing the children’s testimony.
    At the time the IJ refused to continue to an October 28th hearing, however,
    he knew that Vivar Reyes’s counsel Royles was not performing his legal duties on
    the day he was supposed to submit the children’s affidavits. The IJ failed to
    identify the correct legal rule, which holds that a petitioner is entitled to a
    continuance to obtain counsel where the denial of the right to counsel potentially
    affects the outcome of the proceedings. Hernandez-Gil v. Gonzales, 
    476 F.3d 803
    ,
    807 (9th Cir. 2007).
    The IJ therefore improperly denied an additional continuance to allow Vivar
    Reyes to obtain new counsel and offer additional testimony, as had originally been
    contemplated. CF. Baires v. I.N.S., 
    856 F.2d 89
    , 92 (9th Cir. 1988) (denial of
    alien’s request for a continuance and change of venue constituted an abuse of
    discretion and denied alien his statutory right to present evidence on his behalf).
    Accordingly, we remand to the BIA with the instruction to remand for further
    proceedings before the IJ in accordance with this disposition.
    In light of our remand, we need not reach Vivar Reyes’ remaining
    contentions.
    Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
    3
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part and
    remanded.
    4