Case ID: f-appx_201/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ZHONGPING ZENG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-72823.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 11, 2006.
    
    Filed Sept. 14, 2006.
    Zhongping Zeng, Monterey Park, CA, pro se.
    CAC — District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Blair T. O’Con-nor, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Zhongping Zeng, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his request for a continuance for failure to prosecute his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims. We review for abuse of discretion, Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 883 (9th Cir. 2004) and we deny the petition for review.

Zeng was instructed by the IJ to complete a background check and submit to fingerprinting, yet nearly one year later he could provide no reasonable explanation for his failure to do so. As a result, the agency properly denied Zeng’s request for a continuance. See Kashefi-Zihagh v. I.N.S., 791 F.2d 708, 710-11(9th Cir.1986) (IJ did not abuse discretion in denying continuance where petitioner offered no reason why he was unable to obtain evidence prior to his hearing, which was held four months after he filed his application).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.