FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO DELGADO-SALIZAR, aka No. 07-70677
Salizar Delgado, Pedro Salizar, Pedro
Delgado-Salazar, Agency No. A092-733-221
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM *
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 7, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, District
Judge.***
*
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).
***
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Pedro Delgado-Salizar petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat
them only as necessary to explain our decision.
I
Delgado-Salizar first contends that the IJ abused his discretion by refusing to
grant his motion for a continuance. Delgado-Salizar’s attorney told the IJ that she
needed the continuance to file paperwork necessary to Delgado-Salizar’s request
for an adjustment of status. The IJ denied the requested continuance, but granted
Delgado-Salizar several additional days to file the required form. That same day,
IJ denied Delgado-Salizar's adjustment of status request, but explicitly stated that
he did not base his denial on Delgado-Salizar’s failure to file the paperwork.
Accordingly, Delgado-Salizar has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by
the IJ’s decision. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000).
II
Delgado-Salizar next contends that the IJ violated his Due Process rights by
permitting the government to “cross examine” him before his own attorney
conducted a direct examination. After the government completed its examination
of Delgado-Salizar, his attorney conducted an examination. Thus, Delgado-Salizar
had an adequate opportunity to present evidence on his behalf. His hearing was
2
fundamentally fair and did not violate his Due Process rights. See Kaur v.
Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 734, 736-37 (9th Cir. 2004).
III
Finally, Delgado-Salizar claims that the government violated his Due
Process rights by failing to enter into evidence a “rap sheet” that it used during its
examination of him. The BIA’s decision that Delgado-Salizar was not entitled to a
waiver of removability was not based on the contents of the rap sheet, but rather on
his testimony during the government’s examination. Thus, Delgado-Salizar was
not deprived of the right to see any evidence used against him, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(4)(B), nor did the government’s actions fail to follow fundamentally
fair procedures, see Kaur, 388 F.3d at 737.
IV
Accordingly, Delgado-Salizar’s petition for review is
DENIED.
3