Opinion ID: 3052083
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The government contends that we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary decision to deny SandovalLuna’s motion for a continuance. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii),“no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any other decision or action of the Attorney General . . . the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General . . . .” The government argues that the quoted language strips this court of jurisdiction over Sandoval-Luna’s petition for review. We disagree. [1] First, we have statutory jurisdiction over SandovalLuna’s due process and equal protection claims. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, “[n]othing in . . . this chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review . . . .” This provision 5944 SANDOVAL-LUNA v. MUKASEY restores judicial review of constitutional claims presented in petitions for review. See Sandoval-Lua, 499 F.3d at 1126; see also Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 585, 587 (9th Cir. 2005), adopted by 466 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). [2] Second, we also have jurisdiction over Sandoval-Luna’s claim that the IJ abused his discretion by denying the motion for a continuance. Most circuits have held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not strip jurisdiction over petitions challenging an IJ’s discretionary denial of a continuance, even absent constitutional claims. See Alsamhouri v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 117, 121-22 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing cases from other circuit courts addressing the same issue). The plain language of the statute precludes judicial review only for actions “specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). Analyzing this language in the context of an IJ’s discretionary denial of a continuance, the First Circuit concluded: An immigration judge’s authority to continue a case is not “specified under” the subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General. Instead, the grant of discretion is contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 and related regulations. . . . Indeed, the relevant statutory provisions do not mention continuances, let alone indicate that the granting or denial of continuances by an IJ is “in the discretion of the Attorney General.” Therefore, an immigration judge’s discretionary decision to deny a continuance is not covered by the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Alsamhouri, 484 F.3d at 122. [3] This analysis is persuasive. We stated a similar rationale to explain our jurisdiction over an IJ’s discretionary denial of a motion to reopen. See Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 371 SANDOVAL-LUNA v. MUKASEY 5945 F.3d 520, 528-29 (9th Cir. 2004). We now hold that we have jurisdiction to review an IJ’s discretionary denial of a continuance. This type of review is not barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2)(B)(ii). We therefore have jurisdiction over SandovalLuna’s petition for review. It does not follow, however, that he prevails.