N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT PAOLA C OR TEZ C UEVAS,

Pe titione r,
v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-72456 Age n c y No. A208-117-672
M EM OR ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2023 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A , HUR W ITZ, a nd B A DE, C irc uit Judge s. Pa ola C orte z C ue v a s, a

na tive and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing he r a ppe a l from

an im m igra tion judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing he r re que st for a c ontinua nc e and orde ring he r re m ove d. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w 

# FIL ED
FEB 28 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d by Ninth C irc uit R

u le 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2)(C ).for a

b use of disc re tion the de nia l of a c o ntinua n c e . Ahme d

v . Holde r , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th C ir. 2009). W e re vie w de novo que s tions of la w a nd c la i m s of due proc e s s viola

tions in im

m igra tion proc e e dings, Lope z-Ure n da v . Ashc roft , 345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th C ir. 2003), a nd whe the r a

pe titione r’ s sta

tutory right to c ounse l wa s viola te d, Me ndoza-Mazarie

gos v . Muk

ase y , 509 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th C i r. 2007). W e de n y the pe tition for re vie w . 1. The a ge n c y

did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing C o rte z C u e va s’
re que s t for a

furthe r c ontinua

n c e be c a use she did not de m onstra te good c a

use . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.29; Ahme d , 569 F.3d a t 1012 (listing fa

c tors to be c onside re d in de te rm i ning whe the r the de nia l of a c ontinua nc e c onstitute s a

n a buse of disc re tion).

“ Although the

B IA did not e xpre ssly

a ddre ss the Ahme d fa c tors, the IJ suffic ie ntly outline d why

good c a use [for a c ontinua nc e ] did not e xist.” Hui Ran Mu v

. Barr , 936 F.3d 929, 936 (9th C ir. 2019). C orte z C ue v a s ’ c onte ntion tha t the a ge nc y
e rre d by fa iling to a sse s s fa c tors spe c ific to he r a djustm e nt-of-sta tus a pplic ation fa ils be c a use she fa ile d to provide e vide nc e of a pe nding a

pplic a tion like“ c opie s of
re le va nt subm issions in the

c olla te ra l proc e e ding [a

nd] supporting a ffidav its.” Matte r of L-A-B-R- , 27 I. & N. De c . 405, 418 (A.G. 2018). 2. The B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t the IJ did not viola

te C orte z C ue va s’ right to due

proc e ss by

proc e e ding in the a

bse nc e of a wa ive r of c ounse l
and by fa iling to inform

he r of possible a djustm e nt of sta tus re lie f. “ Wh e n a

-2-pe titione r doe s not wa ive the right to c ounse l, IJs m ust provide . . . re a sona

b le tim e to loc a te c ounse l and pe rm it c ounse l to pre p are for the he aring.” Arre y v . Barr , 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th C ir. 2019) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

n d c ita tion
om i tte d). The IJ re pe a te d ly gave C orte z C ue va s notic e of the right to c ounse l during the thre e -y e ar proc e e dings a nd provide d he r with a

list of le ga l se rvic e provide rs. C orte z C ue va s a lso c onte nds tha t she wa s de n ie d

due proc e ss be c a

use the IJ did not disc uss a

fa m i ly -sponsore d visa

with he r prior to he r fina l he aring on July 17, 2018. B ut no suc h duty wa s trigge re d be c a

use he r da

ughte r wa s y ounge r tha

n twe nty -one be fore the fina l he aring, m a k ing he r too y oung to sponsor C orte z C ue va s for a

fa m ily -ba se d visa
. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). IJs ne e d not

“ spe c ulate a

b out the possibility

of a ntic ipate d c ha

nge s of c irc um sta

nc e s.” Unite d State s v . Morie l-Luna , 585 F.3d 1191, 1197 (9th C ir. 2009). M o re ove r, C orte z C ue va s wa s a lre a d

y aware of he r pote ntia l e ligibility so the re wa s no pre

judic e from the IJ’ s a s se rte d fa ilure to inform
. Se e Lata v

. IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000). 3. C orte z C ue va s’ c onte ntion tha t the IJ la c k e d

jurisdic tion ove r he r proc e e dings is fore c lose d by Unite d State s v . Bastide -He rnande

z , 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th C ir. 2022) (e n ba nc ) (holding tha

t la c k of he aring inform a t ion in notic e to a ppe ar doe s not de prive im m igra tion c ourt of subje c t

-3-m a tte r jurisdic tion, a n d 8 C .F.R . § 1003.14(a) is sa tisfie d whe n la

te r notic e provide s he aring inform ation). The te m pora ry sta y of re m ova l re m a i ns in pla c e until the m andate issue s. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

-4-