Rene Carmona Salazar v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RENE ALEXANDER CARMONA No. 14-72009
SALAZAR,
Agency No. A087-105-106
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Rene Alexander Carmona Salazar, a native and citizen of Colombia,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
*
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).
continuance and review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d
1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Salazar’s request for a
fourth continuance, where Salazar requested a continuance to pursue relief on a
speculative basis. See Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.
2008). The agency did not violate due process in denying the continuance, where
Salazar failed to show prejudice. See Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Salazar’s unexhausted contention that the IJ
did not state the reasons for denying the continuance, Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010), and we do not consider extra-record evidence, see
Fisher v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (our review is limited
to the administrative record).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Salazar’s contention that he is
eligible for cancellation of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-72009