Opinion ID: 688405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: 13 We review de novo a claim alleging a due process violation. Reyes-Palacios, 836 F.2d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 1988). The IJ's decision to grant or deny continuances, however, is in the sound discretion of the IJ and will not be overturned except on a showing of clear abuse. Rios-Berrios, 776 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1985). [W]hether a denial of a continuance in an immigration proceeding constitutes an abuse of discretion cannot be decided through the application of bright-line rules; it must be resolved on a case by case basis according to the facts and circumstances of each case. Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Rios-Berrios, 776 F.2d at 862). III Merits 14 Navarrete-Conradino contends that his due process rights were violated at his deportation hearing because the IJ denied his motion for a continuance and ordered him to proceed without counsel. This contention lacks merit. 15 An alien is entitled to a fair deportation hearing which includes the opportunity to have counsel present at no expense to the government. Reyes-Palacios, 836 F.2d at 1155. Failure to accord an alien this right may, in the light of the entire administrative record, be an abuse of discretion and violate due process. Baires, 856 F.2d at 91. Nonetheless, after petitioner has been afforded a reasonable period of time to obtain counsel, the hearing officer may properly conclude that the alien has been unable to do so. Id. at n.4 (citing Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463, 1470 (9th Cir. 1986)). 16 Here, Navarrete-Conradino's deportation hearing was continued three times over a period of almost three months. Two of these continuances were expressly granted to allow Navarrete-Conradino an opportunity to locate counsel. In addition, the IJ repeatedly warned Navarrete-Conradino that if he failed to secure counsel, he would be required to represent himself. Given these circumstances, the IJ did not abuse his discretion by refusing to grant a fourth continuance. See Rios-Berrios, 776 F.2d at 862; Vides-Vides, 783 F.2d at 1470 (where alien failed to obtain counsel after four months and two continuances, IJ justified in proceeding with hearing). 1 17 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.