Case ID: f-appx_519/html/0465-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Armando RIVAS-PUENTES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71977.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 14, 2013.
    
    Filed May 20, 2013.
    Armando Rivas-Puentes, Irvine, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Armando Rivas-Puentes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a request for a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

Rivas-Puentes’ conviction for inflicting corporal injury on his spouse, in violation of California Penal Code § 273.5(a), is a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) that renders him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C); Vasquez-Hernandez v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1053, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2010); Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1083-86 (9th Cir.2010).

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Rivas-Puentes’ request for a continuance for failure to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (no abuse of discretion in denying continuance where relief was not immediately available).

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