Joseph Reid v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH ANTHONY REID, No. 16-72424
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-083-106
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Anthony Reid, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance and
ordering him removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance, and we review
de novo due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause
Reid’s motion for a continuance to seek post-conviction relief, where he had not
begun to seek post-conviction relief on the date of his fifth hearing. See Garcia v.
Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015) (no abuse of discretion where alien had
“ample time” to seek post-conviction relief) (citation omitted)).
Reid has not established any due process violations resulting from the IJ
allegedly disallowing his objection to the admission of evidence, alleged
inaccuracies in the record of proceedings, or the IJ’s alleged bias, where Reid has
not shown that he is eligible for any relief from removal, and he has therefore
failed to establish prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring substantial error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Reid’s unexhausted contention that the
agency violated its own regulations in allegedly disallowing his objection to the
admission of evidence. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s
administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 16-72424