NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS JOSE HENRIQUEZ, No. 18-73269 Petitioner, Agency No. A073-985-989 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: GRABER and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and BOULWARE,*** District Judge. Petitioner Jose Henriquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his request for a continuance and his applications for asylum and for special rule cancellation of removal under the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** The Honorable Richard F. Boulware II, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160 (Nov. 19, 1997), amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644 (Dec. 2, 1997). We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Peng v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1248, 1253 (9th Cir. 2012), and the BIA’s denial of humanitarian asylum, Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 2000). We review findings of fact for substantial evidence. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition in part, deny it in part, and remand for further proceedings. 1. The BIA properly upheld the IJ’s conclusion that Henriquez had failed to show the requisite “good cause” for a continuance. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. Initial removal proceedings in this case began in August 2006, almost twelve years before the June 22, 2018 hearing at issue. Although the case was administratively closed for much of that time, the case had been reopened for more than five months, since January 3, 2018, and Henriquez was represented by counsel at the previous hearing on May 18, 2018. Only a few weeks before the scheduled June 22, 2018 merits hearing, Henriquez chose to terminate his relationship with his attorney. The IJ thereafter granted that attorney’s written motion to withdraw on June 15, 2018, and no attorney made any appearance or filed any papers before the scheduled June 22 hearing. At the June 22 hearing, Henriquez claimed that he had hired a new 2 attorney several weeks ago and that she needed time to prepare. But when questioned, Henriquez could not supply her full name and could not explain her absence beyond stating that she had told him “that she couldn’t make it today.” On this record, the BIA properly concluded that the IJ did not abuse ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals