Camerino Gonzalez-Sanchez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAMERINO RAMON GONZALEZ- No. 12-73334
SANCHEZ,
Agency No. A087-431-985
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Camerino Ramon Gonzalez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his
motion to continue removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance,
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and
review de novo whether the agency applied a correct legal standard, Florez-de
Solis v. INS, 796 F.2d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1986). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Gonzalez-Sanchez’s
motion to continue in order to wait for the outcome of his state-court petition for
post-conviction relief, because Gonzalez-Sanchez failed to demonstrate good cause
for a continuance. 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)). Gonzalez-Sanchez conceded the finality of his conviction and his
resulting ineligibility for relief from removal, and post-conviction relief remained a
merely speculative possibility at the time of his final 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 an abuse-of-discretion challenge to an
IJ’s denial of a continuance where “no relief was then immediately available”).
The BIA applied the correct legal criteria to Gonzalez-Sanchez’s request for
a continuance and adequately considered his arguments on appeal. See Mendez-
Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that “the IJ
applied the correct legal standard” in a case where “the IJ expressly cited and
2 12-73334
applied [relevant case law] in rendering its decision, which is all our review
requires”); see also Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Where
the BIA conducts a de novo review, ‘[a]ny error committed by the IJ will be
rendered harmless by the Board’s application of the correct legal standard.’”
(citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73334