Santos Juanta v. Loretta E. Lynch , 616 F. App'x 249 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 03 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SANTOS FRANCISCO JUANTA, No. 12-71122
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-753-541
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Santos Francisco Juanta, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order declining to
remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his
request for a continuance. 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 9th Cir. R. 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 both the denial of a motion for a continuance,
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008), and the denial of
a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Juanta’s motion for a
continuance to file an application for a U visa, where Juanta had been granted five
continuances for the purpose of filing an application for a U visa, but had failed to
do so. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no abuse of discretion by denying a
motion for a continuance where the relief sought was not immediately available to
petitioner).
To the extent Juanta challenges the BIA’s decision not to remand in light of
evidence Juanta submitted on appeal relating to his U visa eligibility, the BIA did
not abuse its discretion in declining to remand, where Juanta did not submit
evidence that he had actually filed an application for a U visa and, therefore, had
not established that he warranted remand for a further continuance. See id.
To the extent Juanta challenges his detention and the agency’s denial of
bond or parole, those contentions are not properly before us. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(e); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d); Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th
2 12-71122
Cir. 2011) (noting entitlement to bond hearing for certain aliens held in custody
and setting forth procedure for challenging bond determinations).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-71122