NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 28 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIGIDA MAGDALENA SALAZAR No. 18-71546 MARTINEZ, Agency No. A209-162-748 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 16, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS,*** District Judge. Brigida Magdalena Salazar Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing * 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 Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. her appeal challenging the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her request for a continuance to obtain counsel and deeming waived her applications for relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. We review due process challenges to immigration proceedings de novo. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue and a decision to deem an application waived. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We conclude that the IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Salazar Martinez’s request for a fourth continuance, or violate Salazar Martinez’s due process right to counsel by denying the continuance request. Salazar Martinez was made aware that she had one year from her date of entry on May 26, 2016 to file for asylum. She was granted multiple continuances and appeared in immigration court four times between October 5, 2016, and the IJ’s oral decision on May 10, 2017. The IJ informed Salazar Martinez on March 28, 2017, that if she did not return completed applications for relief on May 10, 2017, the applications would be considered abandoned and she would be ordered removed. Throughout, Salazar Martinez was aware of her need for legal assistance. She was out of custody and able to seek counsel and, in addition to granting continuances to allow Salazar Martinez to obtain counsel, the IJ provided information about finding free or low- cost counsel. On these facts, we conclude the IJ did not err in denying a fourth 2 continuance. See Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2019). We also conclude that the IJ did not abuse her discretion in finding Salazar Martinez abandoned her applications for relief when she failed to file applications by the deadline imposed by the IJ, even though sixteen days remained to file under the one-year filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (“If an application or document is not filed …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals