Court Opinion

ID: 9391024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 22:00:43.259409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.089430
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         APR 28 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER RAFAEL HARO-AGUILAR,                     No.     22-591
                                                Agency No. A202-055-927
             Petitioner,

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                   On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                       Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Javier Rafael Haro-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance and

denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a

      *
            This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008).

We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations in

immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.

2004). We deny the petition for review.

      The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Haro-Aguilar’s motion

for a continuance where he failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29;

see also Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors to

consider in good cause analysis); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no abuse of

discretion in denying continuance where relief was not then immediately

available). Haro-Aguilar’s contentions that the agency applied an incorrect

standard, failed to sufficiently explain its decision, and failed to consider

evidence lack merit. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(error and substantial prejudice are required to prevail on a due process claim).

      We decline to reach Haro-Aguilar’s challenges to the agency’s

determination that he failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship that were raised for the first time in his reply brief. See Nguyen v.

Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020) (issues raised for the first time in the

reply brief are waived).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         2                                       22-591