NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO GUADALUPE GARCIA-FELIX, 

AKA Pedro Garcia Garcia, AKA Pedro 

Guadalupe Garcia, AKA Pedro Garcia Felix, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-72921 

Agency No. A208-362-528 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2021**

Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. 

Pedro Guadalupe Garcia-Felix, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance

* 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).

FILED

AUG 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-72921 

and his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of 

a continuance and review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 

1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Felix’s request for 

a continuance to apply for adjustment of status where he did not demonstrate good 

cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to be 

considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse 

of discretion); Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(holding that the IJ’s denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion where 

there was no available relief). The agency properly considered Garcia-Felix to 

have not demonstrated prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status where he 

failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that his 1995 conviction under 

California Health and Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11351 was not a controlled 

substance violation that renders him inadmissible. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1255(i)(2),

1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S.Ct. 754, 766 (2021) (an 

inconclusive conviction record is insufficient to meet applicant’s burden of proof 

to show eligibility for relief).

The agency did not err in concluding that Garcia-Felix failed to establish 

that his 1995 conviction under CHSC § 11351 was not a controlled substance 
3 16-72921 

violation that renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§

1229b(b), 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II); Pereida, 141 S.Ct. at 766. Thus, Garcia-Felix’s

cancellation of removal claim fails.

The agency also did not err in concluding that Garcia-Felix failed to 

establish that his 1995 conviction under CHSC § 11351 was not an aggravated 

felony that renders him ineligible for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. §§

1229c(b), 1101(a)(43)(B); Pereida, 141 S.Ct. at 766.

Garcia-Felix’s motion to strike non-party filing is granted.

The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.