Opinion ID: 4683794
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: To Find an Attorney

Text: There was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Gonzalez-Veliz’s final request for more time to obtain an attorney. See Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1157–58 (9th Cir. 2019). Gonzalez-Veliz knew of her right to hire an attorney; was given a two-month continuance to obtain counsel; was never detained; knew that the IJ would proceed with the hearing even if she was unrepresented unless she showed good cause; but did not even try to contact an attorney before seeking the continuance. In any event, she was able to retain counsel months before her February 8 merits hearing. Compare id. at 1158 & n.3 (finding no abuse of discretion where IJ granted three continuances over two months to acquire an attorney and warned the alien that her case would not be continued any further), with Biwot v. Gonzalez, 403 F.3d 1094, 1099–1100 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding abuse of discretion because alien was given only five total business days from two granted continuances to locate an attorney while incarcerated and made “diligent” efforts to obtain counsel), and Rios-Berrios v. INS, 776 F.2d 859, 862–63 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding abuse of discretion because alien was given only two total business days from GONZALEZ-VELIZ V. GARLAND 19 two granted continuances to locate attorney while incarcerated).