FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERTO BAHENA ROMERO, No. 13-71123
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-882-600
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Gilberto Bahena Romero, 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”) decision denying a continuance and granting
voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance and review de novo
due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Romero failed to
establish good cause for a continuance, where the passage of comprehensive
immigration reform was a speculative possibility and Romero conceded that he
was not eligible for any form of relief from removal other than voluntary
departure. See id. at 1247 (the agency did not abuse its discretion by denying a
motion for a continuance to await promulgation of regulations where “no relief was
then immediately available” to petitioner).
The BIA did not violate Romero’s due process rights by affirming the IJ’s
order, where Romero received a full and fair hearing. See Vargas-Hernandez v.
Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Where an alien is given a full
and fair opportunity to be represented by counsel, to prepare an application for . . .
relief, and to present testimony and other evidence in support of the application, he
or she has been provided with due process.”).
Contrary to Romero’s contention, the BIA applied the correct legal standard,
8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ “may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause
shown”), addressed all issues raised on appeal and provided a reasoned basis for its
2 13-71123
decision, see Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is
required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its
decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard
and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-71123