NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIGIDA MAGDALENA SALAZAR 

MARTINEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71546 

Agency No. A209-162-748 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2022**

San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS,*** District Judge.

Brigida Magdalena Salazar Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing 

* 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).

*** The Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge for the 

District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

FILED

FEB 28 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

her appeal challenging the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her request for a 

continuance to obtain counsel and deeming waived her applications for relief. We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 

We review due process challenges to immigration proceedings de novo. 

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for abuse of 

discretion the denial of a motion to continue and a decision to deem an application 

waived. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). 

We conclude that the IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Salazar 

Martinez’s request for a fourth continuance, or violate Salazar Martinez’s due 

process right to counsel by denying the continuance request. Salazar Martinez was 

made aware that she had one year from her date of entry on May 26, 2016 to file 

for asylum. She was granted multiple continuances and appeared in immigration 

court four times between October 5, 2016, and the IJ’s oral decision on May 10, 

2017. The IJ informed Salazar Martinez on March 28, 2017, that if she did not 

return completed applications for relief on May 10, 2017, the applications would 

be considered abandoned and she would be ordered removed. Throughout, Salazar 

Martinez was aware of her need for legal assistance. She was out of custody and 

able to seek counsel and, in addition to granting continuances to allow Salazar 

Martinez to obtain counsel, the IJ provided information about finding free or lowcost counsel. On these facts, we conclude the IJ did not err in denying a fourth 
3 

continuance. See Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 2005); see also

Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2019).

We also conclude that the IJ did not abuse her discretion in finding Salazar 

Martinez abandoned her applications for relief when she failed to file applications 

by the deadline imposed by the IJ, even though sixteen days remained to file under 

the one-year filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (“If an application or 

document is not filed within the time set by the immigration judge, the opportunity 

to file the application shall be deemed waived.”); Taggar, 736 F.3d at 889 (no 

abuse of discretion in ordering application waived for failure to file within the IJordered deadline). Salazar Martinez was given sufficient opportunity to file for 

relief and warned of the consequences if she did not bring a completed application 

to the May 10, 2017 hearing. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.