Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0716-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wissam Ali ATWI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73973.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 23, 2012.
    Lorena Dorantes, Esquire, Law Office of Lorena Dorantes, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, OIL, Lindsay Elizabeth Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Wissam Ali Atwi, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to continue. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue and review de novo due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Atwi’s request for a continuance where Atwi’s eligibility for relief was speculative. See id. at 1247 (no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to continue where relief was not immediately available); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (“To prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings, [a petitioner] must show error and substantial prejudice.”).

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