Case: 15-10194 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10194
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A089-276-602
TIBURCIO ANIBAL CACERES-GONZALES,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(September 29, 2015)
Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10194 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Tiburcio Anibal Caceres-Gonzales, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions for review of a decision that affirmed his order of removal. Caceres-
Gonzales argues that he was entitled to a continuance of his removal proceedings
to apply for an adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Caceres-Gonzales also
argues, for the first time, that the Board of Immigration Appeals and immigration
judge failed to follow precedent when disposing of the motion to continue. We
deny in part, and dismiss in part, Caceres-Gonzales’s petition.
The immigration judge did not abuse her discretion by denying Caceres-
Gonzales’s motion to continue. An alien may obtain a continuance to pursue an
adjustment of status for “good cause shown,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, but that standard
requires the alien to prove there is more than a “speculative possibility that at some
point in the future” he may be eligible for that relief. Zafar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 461
F.3d 1357, 1363–64 (11th Cir. 2006); accord Chacku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d
1281, 1285 (11th Cir. 2008). Caceres-Gonzales wanted to adjust his status as a
derivative of his wife, Sandra Damien, based on an approved petition filed by her
father, a United States citizen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). To attain his wife’s more
favorable preference status, Caceres-Gonzales had to be “accompanying or
following to join” Damien, see id. § 1153(d), but her priority date, as a citizen of
Mexico, was two years in the future. Because she did not have a visa “immediately
available,” Caceres-Gonzales suggested that he could confer on his wife the more
2
Case: 15-10194 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 3 of 4
favorable visa chargeability of his native country, Honduras, which was current.
See id. § 1152(b)(2); 9 Foreign Affairs Manual § 42.12 n.3.8. But to use each
other’s derivative eligibility, Caceres-Gonzales and his wife had to apply for an
adjustment of status simultaneously, see 9 Foreign Affairs Manual §§ 40.1 n.8(c),
42.12 n.3.8, which they had failed to do. Because the prospect of Caceres-Gonzales
becoming eligible for an adjustment of status as a derivative of his wife was, as
stated by the immigration judge, “totally speculative,” it was not an abuse of
discretion to deny Caceres-Gonzales’s motion to continue. We deny Caceres-
Gonzales’s petition to the extent that he challenges the denial of his motion.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Caceres-Gonzales’s arguments that the
Board and the immigration judge failed to follow precedent that required the
immigration judge to “articulate, balance, and explain” the factors it deemed
relevant in deciding whether to grant or to deny a continuance. See Matter of
Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 794 (B.I.A. 2009). “‘[A] court may review a final
order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies
available to [him] as of right.’” Sundar v. INS, 328 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir.
2003) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)). Exhaustion provides the Board “the
opportunity to discover and correct [its] own error.” Id. at 1325 (alteration in
original and internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Caceres-Gonzales
failed to present this issue to the Board on appeal or in a motion for
3
Case: 15-10194 Date Filed: 09/29/2015 Page: 4 of 4
reconsideration. Because, “absent a cognizable excuse or exception,” we “lack
jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review [when] the petitioner
has [failed to] exhaust[] his administrative remedies,” Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006), we dismiss this part of Caceres-
Gonzales’s petition.
PETITION DENIED IN PART, AND DISMISSED IN PART.
4