FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, No. 08-74982
Petitioner, Agency No. A091-737-195
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Hernandez, 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”) removal order and denying his motion to remand. Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 the denial of a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft,
395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005), and we review de novo questions of law,
Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Hernandez’s challenges to the IJ’s finding of
removability and to the IJ’s pretermission of his application for 212(c) relief
because he failed to exhaust these claims before the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance where
Hernandez did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ may grant
motion for a continuance for good cause shown); Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92-93
(9th Cir. 1988).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez’s motion to
remand because the expungement of Hernandez’s convictions pursuant to Cal.
Penal Code § 1203.4 did not eliminate the immigration consequences of the
convictions. See Ramirez-Castro v. INS, 287 F.3d 1172, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 2002).
2 08-74982
Hernandez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 08-74982