N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HEC TOR R AFAEL GUTIER

REZ, AKA He c tor R a fa e l Gutie rre zM ontoy a ,

Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71485 Age n c y No. A200-370-217 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. He c tor R a fa e l Gutie rre z , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) orde r de ny ing a c ontinua nc e and e nte ring a

n orde r of re m ova l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wfor a buse of 

# 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).disc re tion thede nia l of a c ontinua nc e and re vie w de novo c onstitutiona l c la im s. Sandov al-Luna v . Muk

a se y , 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th C ir. 2008). W e de 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 by

de ny ing Gutie rre z ’ m otion for a

c ontinua nc e to se e k post-c onvic tion re lie f for fa ilure to e sta blish good c a

use . Se e 8 C . F.R . § 1003.29 (a n IJ m ay grant a m otion for a c ontinua nc e for good c a

use ). Gutie rre z ’ c onvic tion wa s fina l for im m i gration purpose s , the possibility of post-c onvic t ion re lie f wa s spe c ulative at the tim e of his la st he a ring, a nd he fa ile d

to submit a

ny e v ide nc e with his a

ppe a l or a fte r that his c onvic tion ha d be e n va c ate d. Se e Sandov al-Luna , 526 F.3d a t 1247 (thede nia l of a c ontinua nc e wa s within the

a ge nc y ’ s disc re tion whe re re lie f wa s not im m e diate ly ava ila ble to pe titione r); Singh 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 ). Gutie rre z ’ c onte ntion tha t the IJ de n ie d the c o ntinua

nc e ba se d sole ly

on c a se c om

ple t ion goa ls is be lie d by

the re c o rd. The re c ord doe s not support Gutie rre z ’ c onte ntion tha

t the a ge nc y

fa ile d to a ddre s s his a

rgum e nts or fa ile d to providesuffic ie nt re a soning a nd a na ly sis. Se e

1 5 - 7 1 4 8 5 2N

ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010) (the a ge nc y m ust

“ c o nside r the issue s ra ise d, a nd a nnounc e its de c ision in term s suffic ie nt to e na ble a re v ie wing c ourt to pe rc e i v e tha t it ha s he ard and thought a nd not m e re ly

re a c te d” (c ita tion a nd quota tion m a rks om itte d )). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 5 - 7 1 4 8 5 3