Case ID: f-appx_447/html/0773-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ricardo ZAMBRANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-70261.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 15, 2011.
    
      Henry Cruz, Rios & Cruz, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Margaret Kuehne Taylor, David V. Ber-nal, Assistant Director, 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: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ricardo Zambrano, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and review de novo constitutional claims, id., and questions of law, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Zambrano’s motion for a continuance to await Congress’ enactment of immigration reform. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247. Because there was no error in the IJ’s decision, it follows that Zambra-no’s due process rights were not violated. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process claim).

Contrary to Zambrano’s contention, the BIA applied the correct legal standard in reviewing the IJ’s decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.

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