N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAM SHID S. KASHANNEJAD, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. UNITED STATES C ITIZENSHIP AND IM M IGR ATION SER

VIC ES; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16112 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-02228-EM C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Edwa rd M . C he n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 22, 2014 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, C ANB Y, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . Jam shid S. Ka sha

nn e ja d, a native and c itiz e n of Iran, a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his ac tion se e king re -e ntry into the Unite d Stat e s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo c ross 

# FIL ED JUL 30 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 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).m otions for sum m ary judgm e nt, Guatay

C hristian Fe llow

ship v . C nty . of San Die go , 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th C ir. 2011), a nd de c ide ripe ne ss de novo, N atural Re s. De f. C ounc il v . Abraham , 388 F.3d 701, 704-705 (9th C ir. 2004). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord. Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting in pa

rt a ppe lle e s’ c ross m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt, be c a

use Ka sha

nne ja d’ s c h a l le nge s c onc e rning whe t he r 8 C .F.R . § 245a .2(u)(2)(ii) c ould be a pplie d to him

we re not ripe for re vie w whe re the re gula tion ha s not be e n a

pplie d to him and it is only spe c u lative tha

t it might be a pplie d to him

in the future . Se e N

atural Re s. De f. C ounc il , 388 F.3d a

t 705 (to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r a pe tition is ripe

for re vie w the c ourt e va luate s the fitne s s of the issue s for judic ia l de c ision a nd the ha rdship to the pa

rtie s of withholding c ourt c onside ration). De nia l of Ka sha

nne ja d’ s m otion for re c onside ration unde r Loc a l R ule 7-9 wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion be c a

use Ka s ha

nne ja d did not se t forth suffic ie nt grounds for re c onside ration. Se e Hinton v . Pac . Ente r s. , 5 F.3d 391, 395-96 (9th C ir. 1993) (re vie wing a

pplic ation of loc a l rule s for a buse of disc re tion). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny i ng Ka sha nne ja d’ s m otion for a

c o ntinua nc e prior to c losing his c a s e and disc ha rging thea

p pe lle e s of 1 3 - 1 6 1 1 2 2the i r obliga

tion to a ssist him

in re -e nte ring the Unite d State s, whe re Ka sha nne ja d did not se e k pe rm ission to le ave from Irania n a uthoritie s until da

y s be fore his sc he dule d de pa

rture . S e e U.S. v . Fly nt , 756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th C ir. 1985), ame nde d , 764 F.2d 675 (9th C i r. 1985) (sa lie nt fa c tors for e va luating thede nia l of a c ontinua nc e inc lude : pe t itione r’ s dilige nc e ; like l ihood tha t the ne e d for the c ontinua nc e c ould ha

ve be e n m e t if the c ontinua nc e wa s gra

nte d; inc onve nie nc e to the c ourt a

nd opposing pa

rty ; a nd pre judic e ). W e do not c onside r Ka sha nne ja d’ s c onte n tion, ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l, tha t a ppe lle e s la c k the le ga l a

uthority to a l low him

to re -e nte r the Unite d Stat e s using the

trav e l le tte r that the y

gave him . S

e ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). W e re je c t Ka sha

nne ja d’ s c onte ntion tha

t unde r Varte las v . Holde r , 132 S.C t. 1479 (2012), 8 C .F.R . § 245a .2(u)(2)(ii) c annot be a pplie d to him , a

nd his c onte ntion tha

t 8 C .F.R . § 245a .2(u)(2)(ii) is ultra vire s, a s the s e c la i m s a

re not ripe for re vie w whe re the re gula tion ha s not be e n a

pplie d to him and it is spe c ulative that it will be a pplie d to him . Se e N

atural Re s. De f. C ounc il , 388 F.3d a

t 705. W e a lso re

je c t Ka sha

nne ja d’ s c onte ntion tha

t he is e ntitle d to e ithe r an I-688 or I-766 ide ntific ation c ard. AFFIRM E D . 1 3 - 1 6 1 1 2 3