FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JULIO CESAR ARISPE-RIBERA, No. 10-73000
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-195-370
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Julio Cesar Arispe-Ribera, a native and citizen of Panama, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and motions
to remand. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam); Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny
in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Arispe-Ribera’s motion to
remand where the BIA considered the evidence he submitted and acted within its
broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant
remanding. See Romero-Ruiz, 538 F.3d at 1062 (BIA abuses its discretion if its
denial of a motion to remand is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
The IJ did not abuse her discretion by denying a continuance to allow
Arispe-Ribera to seek post-conviction relief. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247
(an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown).
We lack jurisdiction to review Arispe-Ribera’s contentions regarding his
allegedly defective criminal conviction, as we cannot collaterally reexamine his
conviction. See Ortega de Robles v. INS, 58 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir. 1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-73000