T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T SERG I O A RV I ZU - G RA N A D O S, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 73203 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 337- 487 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S er gi o A rvi zu-G ranado s, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora dj us tm e ntof s ta tu s an dd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e m an d . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . 

# FI LED JU N 09 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 73203 2 § 1252. W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the de ni a l of am ot i on t o c ont i nue a nd a m o tio n to r e m an d , Sa ndoval-L un a v. Mukasey , 52 6 F . 3d 12 43 , 12 46 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ; M

a lh iv . I NS , 336 F . 3d 989, 993 ( 9th C i r . 2003) , a nd w e r e vi e w de novo c la im s o f c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s in im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g s , Sandov al-L una , 5 2 6 F . 3 da t1 2 4 7 . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he I Jdi d notabus e hi s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng ac ont i nua nc e on the gr ound th a t A rv iz u - G r an a d o s d idn o t d e m o n s tr a te g o o dc au s e . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 29 (an I Jm a yg r an t am o tio n f o rc o n tin u an c e f

o rg o o dc au s e s h o w n ) ; s e e a ls o Sa n do v a lL una , 52 6 F . 3d at12 47 (I J di d n otabuse di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng a c on t i nu ance w here al i en had n o app roved v i sapet i t i on and n o rel i ef w as i m m edi at el y avai l abl e) . It f o llo w s th a t th e I Jd idn o t v io la te du e p r o c e s s b yd e n y in g th e c o n tin u an c e . See La ta v . I NS , 2 0 4 F .3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e q u ir in g e rr o rf o rap e titio n e rto prevai l on a due process cl ai m ). T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng the m ot i on t o r e m and on the g r o u n dth a t A rv iz u - G r an d o s d idn o t s ub m it e v id e n c e d e m o n s tr a tin g p r im af a c ie e lig ib ilityf

o rr e lie f . Se e R a m ir ez -A le

ja n dr e v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 1 9 F .3 d3 6 5 , 3 8 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2003) ( “ U nde rB I A pr oc e dur e , am ot i on t o r e m and m us tm e e ta l l the r e q u ir e m e n ts o f

am o tio n to r e o p e n a n dth e tw o a r e tr e a te dth e s a m e .” ) ; see a l so07- 73203 3 O choa -A m aya v. G on zales , 4 7 9 F .3 d9 8 9 , 9 9 2 (9 th C ir 2 0 0 7 ) ( itis th e p etit io n er ’s bu rden t o est abl i sh pri m a f ac i e e l i gi bi l i ty f

or the re l i ef

soug ht ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.