Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0455-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Emilio RUIZ-QUIROZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70270.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Filed March 1, 2016.
    Jaime Jasso, Esquire, Law Offices of Jaime Jasso, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.
    Allison Frayer, Oil, DOJ-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, FERNANDEZ, 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

Jose Emilio Ruiz-Quiroz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his request for an abeyance of his appeal and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.2012), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not violate due process in denying Ruiz-Quiroz’ request to hold his appeal in abeyance, where the request was not sufficiently supported and the BIA provided reasoned grounds for denial. In addition, the denial did not prevent Ruiz-Quiroz from presenting his ineffective assistance claim in a motion to reopen. See id. at 1199 (the court will reverse the BIA’s decision on due process grounds if the proceeding was “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case”); She v. Holder, 629 F.3d 958, 963 (9th Cir.2010) (“Due process and this court’s precedent require a minimum degree of clarity in dispositive reasoning and in the treatment of a properly raised argument.”).

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