N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ARM ANDO NOC ELOTL,

Pe t i tione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-73784 Age n c y No. A073-869-637
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 De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. Arm ando Noc e lotl, a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r of re m o va l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252. W e re vie w for a b use of disc re tion the de nia l of a m otion for a 

# FIL ED

DEC 20 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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 re vie w for a buse of disc re tion the de c ision to de e m

an a pplic ation a

ba ndone d. Taggar v . Holde r , 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th C ir. 2013). W e d e ny the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion or viola te due proc e ss in de ny ing a
c ontinua nc e to se e k post-c onvic tion re lie f for fa ilure to show good c a use , whe re Noc e lotl provide d no e vide nc e tha t he ha d be gun to se e k

post-c onvic t ion re lie f. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.29; Sandov al-Luna , 526 F.3d a t 1247 (no a

buse of disc re tion in de ny ing a m otion for a c o ntinua nc e whe re the re lie f sought wa s not im m e diate ly
ava ila ble to pe titione r); S

i ngh v . Holde r , 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [T] he IJ [is] not re quire d to gra nt a c ontinua nc e ba se d on . . . spe c ulations.” ); Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (to pre va il on a due proc e ss c ha lle nge , a

n a lie n m ust show e rror and pre

j udic e ). The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t Noc e lotl
a ba ndone d his a

pplic at ion for re lie f, whe re he did not file the a pplic at ion with the im m igration c ourt by

the de a dline the IJ im

pose d. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.31 (a pplic at ions in re m ova l proc e e dings m u st be file d with theim

m igration c ourt, a

nd if a n a pplic at i on “ is not file d within the tim e se t by the [IJ] , the opportunity to file

1 5
- 7 3 7 8 4 2that

a pplic ation . . . shall be de e m e d wa ive d ” ); Taggar , 736 F.3d a t 889 (pe t itione r a ba ndone d a pplic ation whe re she did not file it by the IJ’ s de a dline ). The re c ord doe s not support Noc e lotl’ s c onte ntion tha t the re wa s a

m biguity
c onc e rning thefiling de a dline or tha t the a ge nc y

m i ssta te d e v ide nc e . C ontra ry to Noc e lotl’ s c onte ntion, thea ge nc y provide d suffic ie nt re a soning for its de te rm inations. Se e N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 5
- 7 3 7 8 4 3