Case ID: f-appx_346/html/0251-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SOON HAK BAEK; Eun Joo Baek; In Hee Baek, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74541.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 14, 2009. 
    
    Filed Sept. 28, 2009.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jason X. Hamilton, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Soon Hak Baek, his wife, Eun Joo Baek, and his daughter, In Hee Baek, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal and denial of a motion to continue. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to continue because petitioners’ eligibility for relief was speculative and not immediately available. See id. at 1247.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contention that they are eligible for a waiver because this issue was not exhausted before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

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