Court Opinion

ID: 2824617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-08-11 05:05:14.139623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:33.395641
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             AUG 04 2015

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELICISIMA ALBIOLA ESPINOSA,                     No. 11-72495

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A088-224-046

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

               Respondent.

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

                             Submitted July 21, 2015**

Before:        CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

       Felicisima Albiola Espinosa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from

an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, and

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

1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

      The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, where

Albiola Espinosa had already been given three continuances and she did not show

good cause for an additional continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant

a motion for a continuance for good cause shown). Albiola Espinosa’s contention

that the IJ did not consider all the facts presented is belied by the record.

      To the extent Albiola Espinosa is making a due process claim, it therefore

fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due

process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                            2                                   11-72495