N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE LUIS SANTILLAN R ANGEL, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-72481 Age n c y No. A095-733-576 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 April 13, 2016 ** B e fore : FARRIS, TALLM AN, a n d B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s. Jose Luis Sa

ntilla n R ange l, a

native an d

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’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r of re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion for a 

# FIL ED APR 18 2016 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c ontinua

nc e and re vie w de novo c onstitutiona l c la im s . Sandov al-Luna v . Muk ase y , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th C ir. 2008). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in de ny ing Sa ntilla n R ange l’ s m otion for a c ontinua

nc e whe re he fa ile d to show good c a u s e . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.29 (a n IJ m ay grant a m otion for a

c ontinua nc e for good c a

u se shown); S

andov a l-Luna , 526 F.3d a

t 1247 (thede n ia l of a

c o ntinua nc e wa s within the

a ge n c y ’ s disc re tion whe re re lie f wa s not im

m e diate ly ava ila ble to the pe titione r). The a ge nc y a pplie d the c orre c t le g a l sta

n d ard in de c iding Sa

ntilla n R ange l’ s m otion to c ontinue , whe re the a ge nc y invoke d

the a pplic a ble “ good c a

u se ” sta nda rd a nd c ite d pe rtine n t le ga l a uthoritie s. Se e Me nde

z-C a stro v . Muk

ase y , 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th C i r. 2009) (c onc l uding tha

t the a ge n c y

a pplie s the c orre c t le ga l sta n da rd whe re it e xpre ssly c ite s a n d a pplie s re l e va

nt c a se la w in re nde ring its de c ision). W e re je c t Sa ntilla n R ange l’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA e rre d in not spe c ific a lly a ddre s sing his c o nte ntion tha t the IJ fa ile d to disc uss the re a sons for de ny ing the c ontinua nc e , whe re the B IA c onduc te d a de novo re vie w a

n d provide d its own c onc lusions ba se d on Sa

n tilla n R an ge l’ s fa ilure to e s ta

blish e ligibility

for the re lie f re que s te d. Se e N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ What is re quire d is m e re l y that [the B IA] c onside r the issue s ra ise d, a n d a nnounc e its

1 3 - 7 2 4 8 1 2de c ision in term s suffic ie n t to e na ble a re vie wing c ourt to pe rc e i ve tha t it ha s he ard and thought a

nd not m e re l y re a c te d.” (c ita tion a nd quota tion m arks om itte d)). Santilla n R ange l’ s due proc e ss c l a im fa ils for la c k of e rror or pre judic e from the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of the c ontinua nc e , whe re he ha s not e s ta blishe d e ligibility

for any re lie f re que ste d. Se eLata v . IN S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror and substa ntia l pre judic e to pre va il on a

due proc e ss c la im ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 2 4 8 1 3