NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 conclude s 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 APPEALS2

her appeal challenging the I mmigration J udge’s (“IJ”) denial of her request for a

conti nuance 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). W e 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 t he 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,

201 7 . T he IJ informed Salazar Martinez on March 28, 2017, that if she did not

r eturn 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 cou nsel and, i n addition to granting continuances to allow Salazar

Martinez to obtain counsel, the IJ provided information about finding free or low

cost counsel. On these facts, we conclude t he IJ did not err in denying a fourth3

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

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

W e 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 six teen 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 opp ortunity

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 IJ

ordered deadline). Salazar Martinez was given sufficient opportunity to file for

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

to the May 10, 2017 hearing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.