NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ENRIQUE GARCIA

- ESTRADA, Luis Enrique Estrada, AKA Luis Enrique Garcia, Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 70845 Agency No. A087

- 810

- 125

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021 * *
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Luis Enrique Garcia

- Estrada , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his ap plication for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 70845

cancellation of removal and his motion for a continuance

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Jauregui

Cardenas v. Barr , 946 F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for abuse of
discreti on the d enial of a motion for a continuance. Sandoval

- Luna v. Mukasey , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA properly denied cancellation of removal where Garcia

- Estrada failed to meet his burden of proof to establish his conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11377(a) was not for a controlled substance offense. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 76 6 (2 021) (an inconclusive conviction record is insufficient to meet applicant’s burden of proof to show eligibility for relief)

. The agency did not abuse its discretion in deny ing Garcia

- Estrada ’s fourth request for a continuance where he failed to show good cause to grant it

. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Gonzalez v. INS , 82 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 1996) (no abuse of
discretion in denying request for continuance where multiple continuances had already been granted). We lack jurisdiction to con sider Garcia

- Estrada’s contentions as to reopening, suspension of deportation, extreme and exceptionally unusual hardship, prosecutorial discretion, ineffective assistance of counsel, administrative closure,3 15

- 70845

and relief under an unspecified 2014 Obama execu tive order because he failed to
raise them before the BIA

. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677

- 78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented below )

. We do not address Garcia

- Estrada ’s contention that the IJ failed to exercise
discretion because the BIA did not reach th is issue in denying relief , s ee Santiago

Rodriguez v. Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by t hat agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)) , and Garcia

- Estrada does not argue that was in

error, see Martinez

- Serrano v. INS , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259

- 60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Garcia

- Estrada’s contention s that the agency failed to consider facts and adequately explain its reasoning , and that the BIA erred by failing to consider the due process rights of his United States children , fail. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim) ; see also Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (pe titioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record)

.4 15

- 70845

We do not consider the materials Garcia

- Estrada submitted with h is opening
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955,
963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part ; D ISMISSED in part
.