N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ENR IQUE B ERM UDEZ-ALONSO, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-72922 Age n c y No. A098-953-465 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

M ay 14, 2013 ** B e fore : LEAVY, THOM AS, and M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . Enrique B e rm

u de z -Alonso, a

native and c itiz e n of M e x ic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his m otion to c ontinue his re m ova l proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of 

# FIL ED MAY20 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).disc re tion thea ge nc y ’ s de nia l of a m otion to c ontinue , Sandov al-Luna v . Muk ase y , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th C ir. 2008) (pe r c uriam ), and re vie w de novo que stions of la w a nd due proc e ss c l a im s, Vargas-He rnande z v . Gonzale

s , 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th C ir. 2007). W e d e ny the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion by

de ny ing B e rm

ude z -Alonso’ s m otion to c ontinue in orde r to wa it for the e na c tm e nt of c om pre he nsive im m igration re form , be c a

use he fa ile d to de m onstra te good c a

use for a c ontinua nc e . Se e Singh v . Holde r , 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [A] n IJ

‘ m ay grant a m otion for c ontinua

nc e for good c a

use shown.’ ” (c ita

tion omitte d)). B e rm ude z -Alonso c onc e de d his ine ligibility for re lie f from

re m ova l unde r c urre nt la w, a nd the ba sis for his mo t ion re m a ine d a m e re ly spe c u lative possibility

at the tim e of his re m ova l he a

ring. Se e id. (“ [T] h e IJ [is] not re quire d to gra n t a c ontinua nc e ba se d on . . . spe c ulations.” ); se e also Sandov a l-Luna , 526 F.3d at 1247 (re

j e c ting a n a b use -of-disc re tion c ha lle n ge to a n IJ’ s re fusa l to c ontinue re m ova l proc e e d ings whe re “ no re l ie f wa s the n im m e diate ly av a ila ble ” ). The a ge n c y

c o rre c tly c onside re d the re le va

nt le ga l sta

nda rd and provide d a re a s one d e xpla

n ation for its de c ision de ny ing B e rm ude z -Alonso’ s m otion to c ontinue . Se e N

a j mabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [The B IA m ust] c onside r the issue s ra ise d, a nd a nnounc e its de c ision in term s suffic ie nt to 1 1 - 7 2 9 2 2 2e na

ble a re vie wing c ourt to pe rc e ive that it ha s he ard and thought a nd not m e re ly re a c te d.” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d )). The a ge n c y

did not viola

te B e rm ude z -Alonso’ s due proc e ss rights by de ny ing his motion to c ontinue , be c a use he re c e ive d a

full a nd fa ir he a

ring. Se e Vargas-He r

nande z , 497 F.3d a

t 926-27 (“ Whe re an a l ie n is give n a full a nd fa ir opportunity

to be re pre se nte d by

c ounse l , pre pa

re an a pplic ation for . . . re l ie f, and to pre se nt te s tim ony

and othe r e vide nc e in support of the a pplic at ion, he or she ha s be e n provide d with due p roc e ss.” ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 1 - 7 2 9 2 2 3