Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0400-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edras Naun CRUZ-MONTOYA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-70396
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed June 2, 2017
    James Gun Kim, Attorney, JK Law Group, Norwalk, CA, for Petitioner
    OIL, Melissa Lynn Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edras Naun Cruz-Montoya, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. 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). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Cruz-Montoya’s motion for a continuance for lack of good cause. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1003.31(c); Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct).

The record does not support Cruz-Montoya’s contention that the BIA ignored his arguments and failed to analyze relevant factors. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA must “merely ... announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (citation omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.