Luis Luna-Berumen v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS LUNA-BERUMEN, No. 19-70919
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-290-126
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Luis Luna-Berumen, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting his request for voluntary
departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
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).
discretion the denial of a continuance. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104,
1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Luna-Berumen failed
to show good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder,
569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting out the factors to consider in good
cause analysis, including the nature of the evidence excluded).
Luna-Berumen’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due
process fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error
to prevail on a due process claim).
We reject Luna-Berumen’s contention that he was improperly denied
voluntary departure based on a lack of continuous physical presence, where the
record shows the IJ granted Luna-Berumen voluntary departure.
As stated in the court’s June 14, 2019 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 19-70919