Dung Tang v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 396 F. App'x 444 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             SEP 24 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DUNG KIEN TANG, a.k.a. Dung Tang,                 No. 08-72232
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A041-967-768
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 13, 2010 **
    Before:        SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Dung Kien Tang, a native and citizen of Laos, petitions for review of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
    judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for 212(c) relief for failure to
    *
    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).
    prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review de novo
    questions of law, including due process claims, Ram v. INS, 
    243 F.3d 510
    , 516 (9th
    Cir. 2001), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of an application for
    relief for failure to comply with fingerprinting regulations, Cui v. Mukasey, 
    538 F.3d 1289
    , 1291-92 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
    The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Tang’s request for a
    continuance and his application for 212(c) relief. The IJ instructed Tang in both
    oral and written format to submit himself for fingerprinting and informed him of
    the consequences of a failure to do so, yet Tang could not provide a reasonable
    explanation for his failure to comply with the fingerprinting requirement. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.47
    (d). Accordingly, Tang has not established good cause for his
    failure to comply. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.47
    (c); cf. Cui, 
    538 F.3d at 1293-99
    . Tang’s
    due process contention fails as well. See Lata v. INS, 
    204 F.3d 1241
    , 1246 (9th
    Cir. 2000) (requiring agency error for a petitioner to establish a violation of due
    process).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    08-72232
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-72232

Citation Numbers: 396 F. App'x 444

Judges: Callahan, Silverman, Smith

Filed Date: 9/24/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023