FILED
JUL 16 2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KULJIT KAUR; JASMINE KAUR; No. 07-70734
JASKARAN SINGH,
Agency Nos. A055-719-419
Petitioners, A055-719-420
A055-719-421
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Kuljit Kaur and her children, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
*
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).
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their motion for a
continuance of removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, Ahmed
v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ August 10,
2005, request for a further continuance because both the BIA and the IJ offered
reasoned bases for the denial, and petitioners did not establish that a further
continuance would benefit their pursuit of relief from removal. See Singh v. INS,
213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2000) (agency abuses discretion when it acts
“arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted); see also Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (evaluating, among other
factors, the nature of evidence excluded as a result of the denial of the continuance,
the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct, and the reasoned bases of the
agency’s denial).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-70734
3 07-70734