`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`FILED
`
`
`JUL 17 2023
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Petitioner,
`
`PEDRO GONZALEZ,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
`General,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 21-70056
`
`
`Agency No. A074-821-166
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respondent.
`
`
`
`On Petition for Review of an Order of the
`Board of Immigration Appeals
`
`Submitted July 13, 2023**
`San Francisco, California
`
`
`Before: BEA, BENNETT, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Pedro Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
`
`Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s
`
`(“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and denying his
`
`request for a continuance. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by
`
`
`*
` 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
`
`1. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Petitioner did not
`
`merit cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2012). We need
`
`not address Petitioner’s arguments that the IJ erred in its determinations of hardship
`
`and good moral character because the IJ would be entitled to deny relief as a matter
`
`of discretion even if Petitioner were statutorily eligible. See Romero-Torres v.
`
`Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2003).
`
`2. We review the denial of a motion to continue for abuse of discretion. Ahmed
`
`v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). An IJ “may grant a motion for
`
`continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. The IJ “must focus
`
`principally on two factors: (1) the likelihood that the alien will receive the collateral
`
`relief, and (2) whether the relief will materially affect the outcome of the removal
`
`proceedings.” Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 405, 413 (A.G. 2018). The IJ may
`
`also consider the alien’s diligence in pursuing the collateral relief, the government’s
`
`position on the motion to continue, and the procedural history of the case. Id.
`
`In upholding the IJ’s denial of the motion to continue, the BIA considered the
`
`relevant factors. The BIA reasonably concluded that Petitioner had not made a
`
`sufficient proffer of eligibility for adjustment of status given that Petitioner’s
`
`previously approved family-based petition had been automatically revoked upon the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`death of his father and Petitioner had not submitted evidence that he made the
`
`necessary request for reinstatement. 8 C.F.R. § 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C)(2). The BIA also
`
`correctly noted that the IJ did not prevent Petitioner from filing an application for an
`
`adjustment of status. Although Petitioner argues that he was effectively denied the
`
`opportunity to pursue an adjustment of status due to time constraints, he fails to
`
`explain why he could not complete the application in the time given. Additionally,
`
`the BIA reasonably concluded that, based on his multiple DUI convictions,
`
`Petitioner was unlikely to merit adjustment of status even if his petition were
`
`reinstated. Thus, the denial of the motion to continue was not an abuse of discretion.
`
`PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
