Llanos v. Holder , 565 F. App'x 675 ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 29, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
AMERICO BAZAN LLANOS,
Petitioner,
v. No. 13-9589
(Petition for Review)
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States
Attorney General,
Respondent.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Americo Bazan Llanos is a native and citizen of Peru who entered the United
States in 2000. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice to
appear charging Mr. Llanos with having overstayed his six-month visa. Mr. Llanos
appeared initially before an immigration judge (IJ) on January 26, 2011, and was
granted a three-month continuance. At an IJ hearing on April 27, 2011, he conceded
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
his removability, and stated he would be seeking adjustment of status based on a
I-130 petition filed by his current wife’s United States citizen sister. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(i) (providing for adjustment of status for certain aliens physically present in
United States).
The IJ thereafter granted Mr. Llanos two more continuances to perfect his
eligibility for adjustment of status. When he appeared before the IJ on July 18, 2012,
without proof that he had obtained the necessary approvals, the IJ denied him a
further continuance, rejected his request for administrative closure, ordered him
removed to Peru, but granted him voluntary departure. The BIA dismissed his appeal
from the IJ’s decision, and he petitioned this court for review.
Mr. Llanos argues that (1) the IJ abused his discretion in denying him an
additional continuance; (2) the IJ’s decision failed to adequately address his requests
for a continuance and for administrative closure; (3) the BIA improperly considered
evidence outside the record in reaching its decision; and (4) the BIA failed to weigh
the proper factors in evaluating his request for administrative closure. “We review
the decision to deny a continuance for an abuse of discretion.” Luevano v. Holder,
660 F.3d 1207, 1213 (10th Cir. 2011) (ellipsis and internal quotation marks omitted).
The decision to deny administrative closure is likewise reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Vahora v. Holder, 626 F.3d 907, 919 (7th Cir. 2010).1
1
The government argues that administrative closure is a discretionary decision
outside the scope of our review because there is no meaningful standard against
(continued)
-2-
Having carefully considered Mr. Llanos’s brief, the government’s response
brief, the administrative record and the relevant law in light of the applicable review
standards, we discern no reversible error in the issues raised, and therefore deny the
petition for review.
The petition for review is denied.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
which to judge the agency’s exercise of its discretion. For the reasons stated in
Vahora, 626 F.3d at 914-19, however, we disagree and conclude that the agency’s
decision to deny administrative closure is reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion
standard.
-3-