Case ID: f-appx_675/html/0658-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan GUTIERREZ-GALINDO, AKA Juan Guiterrez, Petitioner, v. Dana BOENTE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72592
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed FEBRUARY 3, 2017
    James B. Rudolph, Esquire, Attorney, Rudolph, Baker & Associates, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner
    OIL, Lindsay Brooke Glauner, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Thankful Vanderstar, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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 Gutierrez-Galindo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause Gutierrez-Galindo’s motion for a continuance to request that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reconsider its prior denial of his request for prosecutorial discretion. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n IJ ‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’” (citation omitted)). Gutierrez-Galindo provided no evidence to support his contention that the agency would change its decision issued only two months prior, and the basis for the motion remained merely a speculative possibility at the time of his final removal hearing. See id. (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on ... speculations.”).

The record does not support Gutierrez-Galindo’s contention that the IJ failed to provide sufficient reasoning. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.