Gregoria Valladares-Gomez v. Jefferson Sessions , 713 F. App'x 599 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    GREGORIA VALLADARES-GOMEZ,                      No.    15-72683
    JORGE MIRANDA-VALLADARES, and
    ROSA ISABEL GONZALEZ-                           Agency Nos.       A202-000-428
    VALLADARES,                                                       A206-807-864
    A202-000-427
    Petitioners,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 13, 2018**
    Before:      LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Gregoria Valladares-Gomez and her family, natives and citizens of El
    Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
    dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
    *
    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).
    applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention
    Against Torture (“CAT”), and requests for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is
    governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations
    in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 532
    , 535 (9th Cir.
    2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v.
    Mukasey, 
    524 F.3d 1066
    , 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review for abuse of
    discretion the denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 
    526 F.3d 1243
    , 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
    review.
    We deny petitioners’ motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No.
    24). See Fisher v. INS, 
    79 F.3d 955
    , 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s
    review is limited to the administrative record).
    The IJ did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
    petitioners’ requests for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Padilla-Martinez
    v. Holder, 
    770 F.3d 825
    , 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a
    petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.” (citations
    omitted)).
    Apart from their arguments related to the denial of a continuance, petitioners
    do not raise any challenge to the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of
    removal, and CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259-60
    2                                   15-72683
    (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief
    are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to these claims.
    Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ challenges to the BIA’s
    October 5, 2015, order denying their motion to reconsider and motion to reopen
    based on ineffective assistance of counsel, because petitioners did not file a timely
    petition for review as to that order. See Stone v. INS, 
    514 U.S. 386
    , 405 (1995)
    (deadline for filing a petition for review from a final order of removal is
    “mandatory and jurisdictional”).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    3                                    15-72683