NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT XING CHEN, No. 18-70886 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-082-873 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: KELLY,*** GOULD, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Xing Chen petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) final order of removal, dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision that he had abandoned the opportunity to file an asylum * 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 Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. application and the situation did not warrant a third continuance. He contends that this court should remand the continuance denial in light of intervening case law. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition for review on the abandonment issue and dismiss it on the continuance denial. Because the parties are familiar with the underlying facts and procedure, we need not restate them here. STANDARD OF REVIEW Where, as here, the Board agrees with the IJ’s decision, while adding additional reasoning, the court reviews both decisions together. See Arteaga-De Alvarez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 730, 735 (9th Cir. 2012). We review the determination that a petitioner abandoned his application for asylum for an abuse of discretion. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). An abuse of discretion may be found if the IJ acts “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944, 947 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2000)). Whether a petitioner has failed to exhaust a claim is a question of law reviewed de novo. See Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 891 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 2018). 2 DISCUSSION A. Abandonment The IJ did not abuse his discretion in finding that Mr. Chen had abandoned the opportunity to file an asylum application. All applications that are to be considered in a proceeding before an IJ must be filed with the immigration court. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(a). The IJ may set the time limit for filing and if an application is not filed within the time set, the opportunity to file the application “shall be deemed waived.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c); Taggar, 736 F.3d at 889–90. Mr. Chen failed to complete his asylum application within both the initial deadline set by the IJ and an extended deadline. Mr. Chen relies upon Matter of D-M-C-P-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 644 (BIA 2015), in arguing that the IJ erred by ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals