Case ID: f-appx_366/html/0852-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Manuel REYES-SOLORIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73632.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
    Rosaura Del Carmen Rodriguez, Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Kate D. Balaban, Esquire, OIL, Marion E. Guyton, Esquire, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, 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

Juan Manuel Reyes-Solorio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Reyes-Solorio’s motion to continue because Reyes-Solorio’s eligibility for adjustment of status was speculative. See id. at 1247 (denial of a motion to continue was not an abuse of discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner).

We lack jurisdiction to review Reyes-Solorio’s unexhausted due process claim regarding the denial of a continuance. See Serrano v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir.2006).

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