Court Opinion

ID: 9889877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 18:00:37.668554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:48.975325
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 11 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KARINA GODOY-JIMENEZ,                           No. 22-1535
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A092-829-489
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted October 2, 2023**
                               Seattle, Washington

Before: WARDLAW and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MATSUMOTO, Senior
District Judge.***

      Karina Godoy-Jimenez (“Godoy-Jimenez”), a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

      *
             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).
      ***
             The Honorable Kiyo A. Matsumoto, United States Senior District
Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application

for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

      1.      The BIA did not err in concluding that Godoy-Jimenez was statutorily

ineligible for cancellation of removal relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). To

establish eligibility for cancellation of removal, an applicant must demonstrate,

among other requirements, that she has not been convicted of an offense under 8

U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2), which includes “violation[s] of . . . any law or regulation of a

State . . . relating to a controlled substance” as defined by the Controlled

Substances Act (“CSA”). 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). We have held that, as a

matter of law, California’s definition of methamphetamine is a categorical match

to the federal definition in the CSA. United States v. Rodriguez-Gamboa, 972 F.3d

1148, 1152–55 (9th Cir. 2020). Therefore, Godoy-Jimenez’s argument that her

conviction for possession of methamphetamine in violation of California Health

and Safety Code § 11377(a) is not a disqualifying controlled substance offense

under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) because the California statute is overbroad is

foreclosed.

      Moreover, the BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s determination that because

Godoy-Jimenez failed to submit complete disposition records of her criminal

history, she failed to satisfy her burden to establish statutory eligibility for relief

                                           2                                     22-1535
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(A). See Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 767

(2021) (“[N]onpermanent aliens seeking to cancel a lawful removal order must

prove that they have not been convicted of a disqualifying crime.”). Because

Godoy-Jimenez failed to challenge this finding on appeal, the issue is waived. See

Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

      2.     The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Godoy-Jimenez’s

request for a continuance to seek postconviction relief because Godoy-Jimenez did

not demonstrate good cause for the continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (“The

immigration judge may grant a motion for continuance for good cause

shown. . . .”). In determining whether a petitioner has established good cause, we

consider: “(1) the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the denial of the

continuance, (2) the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct, (3) the

inconvenience to the court, and (4) the number of continuances previously

granted.” Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Godoy-Jimenez contends that the IJ’s denial of her continuance request

resulted in her inability to present evidence of postconviction relief for her

methamphetamine possession conviction. “But the IJ [is] not required to grant a

continuance based on . . . speculations,” Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th

Cir. 2011), and at the time of her oral request for a continuance, Godoy-Jimenez

presented no evidence that she had obtained, or even attempted to obtain, relief

                                         3                                       22-1535
from this conviction. Moreover, Godoy-Jimenez had already been in removal

proceedings for four years, during which time the IJ granted six continuances.

Before granting the final two continuances, the IJ warned Godoy-Jimenez of the

potential disqualifying effect of her criminal history and explained precisely what

documents the IJ required to determine Godoy-Jimenez’s eligibility for relief. It

was only after Godoy-Jimenez failed twice to bring these requested documents to

her hearing that she made the request for continuance at issue here.

      Therefore, weighing the speculative nature of the postconviction relief, the

unreasonableness of Godoy-Jimenez’s repeated failure to bring the required

documentation, and the numerous other continuances previously granted, the IJ did

not abuse her discretion in determining that Godoy-Jimenez failed to establish

good cause for continuance to seek postconviction relief. See Garcia v. Lynch, 798

F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015) (denying petitioner’s request for continuance to seek

postconviction relief where the IJ already continued the proceedings three times).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        4                                  22-1535