NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2023 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS BERNICE TAPIA SANCHEZ, aka Berenice No. 21-70341 Tapia Sanchez, Agency No. A206-272-588 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.*** Berenice Tapia Sanchez, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering that she be removed to Mexico if she did not voluntarily depart within a specified period. We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concluded that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** This matter is decided unanimously by a quorum of the panel. See 28 U.S.C. § 46(d); Ninth Cir. Gen. Order 3.2(h). 1. The BIA properly upheld the IJ’s denial of Sanchez’s motion for a continuance of her removal proceedings and the IJ’s conclusion that Sanchez had thereby abandoned any application for cancellation of removal. An alien must establish good cause for any requested continuance of removal proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. “The decision to grant or deny a continuance is in the sound discretion of the [IJ] and will not be overturned except on a showing of clear abuse.” Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “When reviewing an IJ’s denial of a continuance, we consider a number of factors, including: (1) the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the denial of the continuance, (2) the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct, (3) the inconvenience to the court, and (4) the number of continuances previously granted.” Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). Sanchez has failed to establish a clear abuse of discretion in the denial of her requested continuance. At a hearing in July 2017, Sanchez appeared with counsel before the IJ, and a Spanish-language interpreter contemporaneously translated the proceedings for her. The IJ orally set a deadline of February 23, 2018 to file any applications for relief, with a merits hearing on April 23, 2018. The deadlines were also set down in a written “Record of Master Calendar Pre-Trial Appearance and Order,” which was signed by Sanchez and her counsel. This written notice reiterated the 2 February 23, 2018 deadline for submitting any applications for relief and specifically warned that “Failure to timely file the aforementioned documents will result in the conclusion that such applications are abandoned.” On November 6, 2017, Sanchez’s counsel filed a written motion to withdraw, explaining that there had been a “total lack of communication …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals