NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OTONIEL PATINO GARCIA, AKA No. 18-70835 Otoniel Garcia, Agency No. A208-081-810 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 8, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, and EZRA,*** District Judge. Otoniel Patino Garcia (Patino) petitions this court for review of his final order of removal to Mexico. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. them only as necessary to explain our decision. I The Notice to Appear’s failure to include notice of the date, time, and place of Patino’s initial hearing did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction because Patino was subsequently given notice of such information, as provided under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(b). See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 893–95 (9th Cir. 2020); Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1159–62 (9th Cir. 2019). II The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not abuse its discretion in denying Patino’s motion for a continuance so that he could look for evidence to show that he was born in the United States. See Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The decision to grant or deny the continuance is within the sound discretion of the [immigration] judge and will not be overturned except on a showing of clear abuse.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even after he was given an additional month to prepare for the evidentiary hearing before the Immigration Judge (IJ), Patino did not provide credible evidence suggesting that he was born in the United States. The record supports the IJ’s finding that the testimony offered by Patino’s aunt was not credible, and Patino presented no other evidence showing that he was born in the United States. See, e.g., Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because credibility determinations are 2 findings of fact by the IJ, they are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). On this record, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Patino failed to show “good cause,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, to receive additional time to search for evidence of his otherwise unsubstantiated assertion of U.S. birth. See, e.g., Salgado v. Sessions, 889 F.3d 982, 989 (9th Cir. 2018) (upholding denial of continuance for a mental health evaluation where no “credible evidence” supported petitioner’s claim of incompetency). III A The government satisfied its burden of proving Patino’s alienage. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals