NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ALONSO REYES-LOMELI, Nos. 17-70060 16-72760 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-930-851 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Alonso Reyes-Lomeli, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance, and denying his motion to reopen. * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009), and denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petitions for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Reyes-Lomeli’s request for an additional continuance, for failure to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). Reyes-Lomeli conceded removability, he had been granted several prior continuances, he submitted no evidence that a visa petition had been filed on his behalf, and he has not addressed the IJ’s determination that he abandoned his applications for cancellation of removal and asylum. See Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider); Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (denial of a continuance was within the agency’s discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Reyes-Lomeli’s motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of removal, where he did not submit any hardship evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (the BIA can deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought); Patel v. INS, 741 F.2d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[I]n the context of a 2 17-70060 motion to reopen, the BIA is not required to consider allegations unsupported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). We reject Reyes-Lomeli’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in denying the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-70060 17-70060 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jose Reyes-Lomeli v. Jefferson Sessions 13 July 2018 Agency Unpublished 689dd0a410fb03b041c6fd80c0899a07833c04ca
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals