eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2010-01

Alvaro-Sotomayor v. Holder , 362 F. App'x 757 ( 2010 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                            FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTIAGO ALVARO-SOTOMAYOR,                      No. 07-74406
Petitioner,                       Agency No. A098-761-340
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before:        BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Santiago Alvaro-Sotomayor, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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.
*
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).
DL/Research
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA reviewed the
IJ’s decision for abuse of discretion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. See de
Leon-Barrios v. INS,
    116 F.3d 391
    , 393 (9th Cir. 1997). We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,
    526 F.3d 1243
    ,
1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying a second continuance to allow
Alvaro-Sotomayor to seek post-conviction relief. See Grageda v. INS,
    12 F.3d 919
    , 921 (9th Cir. 1993);
    Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247
    . Alvaro-Sotomayor’s
contentions that the IJ failed to employ the correct legal standard and failed to
specify an adequate reason for denying the continuance are not supported by the
record.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Alvaro-Sotomayor’s due process contention
because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
    358 F.3d 674
    , 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
DL/Research                                2                                    07-74406