Court Opinion

ID: 9409962
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-19 21:01:13.612867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:54.513764
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JUL 19 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO GARDEA CERECERES,                     No. 22-134
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A215-648-966
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted July 17, 2023**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Francisco Gardea Cereceres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro

se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing

his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying him a

continuance to seek post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. To the extent that the BIA incorporated the IJ’s reasoning, we review

      *
            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).
both decisions. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). We review

for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo questions

of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). Because the

parties are familiar with the factual background, we need not recount it here.

We deny the petition.

      An IJ may, in its discretion, “grant a motion for continuance for good

cause shown.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d

1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (the decision to grant or deny the

continuance is within “the sound discretion of the judge and will not be

overturned except on a showing of clear abuse” (citation omitted)). The

decision requires weighing several factors, if relevant. See Ahmed, 569 F.3d at

1012 (setting out the factors to consider in a good-cause analysis); Matter of L-

A-B-R-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 405, 406 (A.G. 2018) (the most important factor is “the

likelihood that the collateral relief will be granted and will materially affect the

outcome of the removal proceedings”).

      The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gardea Cereceres’s

motion to continue. Gardea Cereceres’s conviction was final for immigration

purposes. Gardea Cereceres neither provided evidence of the basis of his post-

conviction relief petition nor updated the agency on the progress of that petition.

Post-conviction relief was therefore merely a speculative possibility. See

Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015). Even if the IJ erred by

failing to consider the short procedural history of Gardea Cereceres’ case, see

                                          2                                     22-134
Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 415, the BIA acknowledged the

relevance of that history before concluding de novo that the relevant factors,

considered together, did not establish good cause. See Brezilien v. Holder, 569

F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Where the BIA conducts a de novo review, any

error committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the Board’s application

of the correct legal standard.” (citation omitted) (cleaned up)). Without legal

error or clear and convincing evidence demonstrating good cause, it was well

within the IJ’s discretion to deny the requested continuance.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        3                                    22-134