Hector Padilla v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date filed: 2011-03-25
Citations: 424 F. App'x 634
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                          MAR 25 2011

                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

HECTOR A. PADILLA, a.k.a. Alex                   No. 10-70294
Padilla,
                                                 Agency No. A092-143-130
               Petitioner,

  v.                                             MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.



                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted March 8, 2011 **

Before:        FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       Hector A. Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, and de novo claims of

          *
             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).
due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,

526 F.3d 1243, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

      The IJ did not abuse his discretion or violate Padilla’s constitutional right to

due process by denying Padilla’s motion for a continuance. See id. at 1247;

Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 972 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice

to establish a due process violation).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                           2                                    10-70294