N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LUIS M AR TIN UR C INO,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 13-70378 14-73760 Age n c y No. A070-761-156
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 Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 5, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW

and GOULD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd PIER SOL, ** Distric t Judge
. Luis M artin Urc i no, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe t itions for re vie w of the Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ) de nia l of his m otion for a c ontinua nc e , a ffirm e d by 

# FIL ED DEC 21 2017 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 Honora

ble La wre nc e L. Pie rsol, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of South Da

k o ta , sitting by

de signa tion.the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA). 1 In a c o nsolida

te d a ppe a l, Urc ino a lso pe titions for re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of his m otion to re ope n. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1), and we grant the pe tition for re vie w of the d e nia l of the m otion for a c ontinua nc e without re a c hing thede nia l of the
m otion to re o pe n . W e re m and to theB IA for furthe r proc e e d ings c onsiste nt with this disposition. 1. Urc ino se e ks to supplem e nt the a dm inistra tive re c ord with a c om

ple te
c opy of his sta t e c ourt c rim ina l doc ke t she e t. Appe lla te c ourts m ay

ta ke judic ia l notic e of m atte rs of re c ord in othe r c o urt proc e e dings, inc luding those oc c urring during pe nde n c y

of the fe d e ra l a

ppe a l , e ve n if thosere c ords a re not pa rt of the
a dm inistra

tive re c ord. Se e Be nne tt v . Me dtronic , Inc
. , 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th C ir. 2002). Judic ia l notic e is a ppropria te in the se c irc um s ta

nc e s “ to e nsure tha

t . . . judic ia l ignora

n c e is not insula

t e d from re vie w through hy

p e r-te c hnic a l a

pplic ation of the ge ne ra l rule tha

t the c ourt c an c onside r only e vide nc e c onside re d” in the proc e e dings be low. Se e Singh v . Ashc roft , 393 F.3d 903, 907 (9th C ir. 2004).

1 At ora l argum e nt, Urc ino’ s c ounse l indic at e d tha t Urc ino would not c onte st the de nia l of the m otion for c ontinua nc e . Urc ino, howe v e r, prope rly c ha lle nge d the de nia l of the m otion for c ontinua nc e in his ope ning brie f, pla c ing the i ssue squa

re l y be fore us. W e c onstrue c ounse l’ s re m arks at ora l a rgum e nt to lim it the inquiry

at ora l argum e nt only

and c onc lude tha

t Urc ino pre s e rve d his argum e nts a s to the m otion for a c ontinua nc e by ra ising the m

in his ope ning brie f. 2B e c a

use the sta

te c ourt c rim ina l doc ke t she e t tha t Urc ino wishe s to a dd to the
a dm inistra

tive re c ord is public l y

ava ila b le , c re dible , a

nd a l re a dy

pa rtia lly inc lude d in the re c ord, we grant Urc ino’ s m otion. 2. The IJ a

buse d he r disc re tion by

de ny ing Urc ino’ s m o tion for a
c ontinua nc e . Unde r 8 C
. F.R . § 1003.29, a n IJ “ m ay grant a m otion for c ontinua nc e for good c a

use shown.” “ The que stion whe the r de nia l of a c ontinua nc e in a n im m igration proc e e ding c onstitute s a n a buse of disc re tion c annot be de c ide d through thea

pplic ation of bright-line

rule s; it m

u st be re solve d on a

c a s e by c a se ba sis.” Baire

s v . IN S , 856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th C ir. 1988); s e e also C ui v . Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 1289, 1 2 92 (9th C ir. 2008) (listing fac tors to c onside r in re vie w ing a de nia l of a

m otion for a

c ontinua nc e ). In this c a se , the de nia l of the m otion for a c ontinua n c e wa s an a

b use of disc re tion be c a

use , at the tim e of the de nia l, the IJ kne w tha t the c onvic t ion unde rly ing Urc ino’ s se c tion 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) a nd se c tion 212(a)(2)(C ) grounds for re m ova l wa s infirm , a nd tha t Urc ino’ s c rim ina l attorne y s we re working with the s tat e tria l c o urt to ha

ve the c onvic tion va c ate d, a goa l tha t wa s ultim ate ly
a c hie ve d in August 2012— e ve n be fore the IJ issue d a writte n de c ision. Urc ino’ s
va c ate d c onvic tion is m ate ria l to Urc ino’ s e ligibility for re lie f from

re m ova l be c a use , a lthough Urc ino wa s a lso re m ova ble unde r se c tion 212(a)(6)(A)(i) a s a n
3a lie n not a dm itte d or pa role d, tha t ground a lone would not ha ve ba rre d Urc ino from se e k ing a wa ive r unde r INA se c tion 212(h) a nd a djustm e nt of sta

tus. Nor should theIJ ha

ve disc ounte d Urc ino’ s re que st for a dditiona l tim e m e re ly be c a use Urc ino ha d a lre a dy

re que ste d m

ultiplec ontinua

nc e s to obta in a

la wy e r an d to
c om m unic ate with c ounse l during his dete ntion a t the The o La c y

C orre c tiona l Fa c ility . Urc ino’ s re que st for a dditiona l tim e wa s lim ite d to the am o unt of tim e it would ta ke for the sta

te tria l judge to a c t on Urc ino’ s pe nding pe t ition; it wa s not inde finite
. Ac c ordingly , we re m and to theB IA to de te rm ine how Urc i no’ s va c ate d
c onvic tion a

nd upda te d ple a a ffe c t Urc ino’ s e l igibility for re lie f, and to c onside r whe the r Urc ino should be pa role d to the Unite d State s to pursuesuc h re lie f. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D and RE M ANDE D.

4