Ricarte Corral v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 580 F. App'x 623 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RICARTE DETERA CORRAL, No. 13-70995
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-055-112
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Ricarte Detera Corral, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal from a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his motions for a
continuance and administrative closure of removal proceedings. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), we
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying for lack of good cause
Corral’s motion for a second continuance to wait for the government’s adjudication
of his request for humanitarian reinstatement of his previously revoked immigrant-
visa petition. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n IJ
‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’” (citation omitted)).
Corral conceded his removability and ineligibility for any relief from removal, and
the basis for the continuance remained a speculative possibility at the time of his
final removal hearing. See id. (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance
based on . . . speculations.”); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (rejecting a
challenge to an IJ’s denial of a continuance where “no relief was then immediately
available”). In light of this disposition, the BIA correctly declined to address
Corral’s argument regarding the effect of the visa-petition revocation. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule . . .
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation omitted)).
2 13-70995
Assuming without deciding that we have jurisdiction to review Corral’s
motion for administrative closure, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying
the motion, where Corral failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate a
likelihood that his request for a discretionary grant of humanitarian reinstatement
would succeed such that he would be prima facie eligible for adjustment of status
in recalendared proceedings. See Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688, 696
(BIA 2012) (holding that, for administrative closure, it is appropriate for the BIA
to weigh the likelihood of success of an application and the ultimate outcome of
recalendared removal proceedings).
In ruling on Corral’s motion for administrative closure, the BIA permissibly
conducted a de novo review instead of remanding the matter to the IJ, where
adjudication of the motion required only an application of law to undisputed facts.
See Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 412 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The Board may
review questions of law . . . de novo.” (citation omitted)); see also Gasparyan v.
Holder, 707 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Questions of law include . . . the
application of law to ‘undisputed facts.’” (citation omitted)). The BIA also applied
the correct legal standard to the motion. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that “the IJ applied the correct legal standard”
3 13-70995
in a case where “the IJ expressly cited and applied [relevant case law] in rendering
its decision, which is all our review requires”).
Finally, the BIA’s de novo review of Corral’s motions for a continuance and
administrative closure rendered harmless any alleged errors by the IJ in ruling on
these motions. See Brezilien, 569 F.3d at 411.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 13-70995