Case ID: f-appx_366/html/0815-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus Ruiz NICOLAS; Olivia Perez Monteagudo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-75125.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
    
      Jesus Ruiz Nicolas, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Olivia Perez Monteagudo, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Luis E. Perez, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Ruiz Nicolas and Olivia Perez Monteagudo, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal and denying their motion to continue. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per cu-riam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not violate due process by denying petitioners’ motion to continue because petitioners did not establish good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown); see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process -violation).

We lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to evaluate their hardship evidence in the aggregate, because it does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Men dez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2009).

We also lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s February 21, 2008, order because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.