Case ID: f-appx_426/html/0482-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Annet HENGIO; Kirion Hengio, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73709.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 29, 2011.
    Maria Corazon Avinante, Law Office of M. Cora Avinante, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioners.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Lisa Damiano, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Annet Hengio and Kirion Hengio, natives and citizens of Micronesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, SandovaL Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we review de novo due process claims, id. We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying the Hengios’ request for a continuance because they did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009) (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the denial and the number of continuances previously granted).

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