FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ-MANCILLA, No. 06-70408
Petitioner, Agency No. A071-622-109
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Enrique Rodriguez-Mancilla, 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 his application 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).
JTK/Research
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s continuous physical presence
determination, Landin-Zavala v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 1150, 1151 (9th Cir. 2007),
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, and review de
novo claims of due process violations, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243,
1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodriguez-
Mancilla did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement because
Rodriguez-Mancilla was personally served an order to show cause in 1993 and
testified that he signed for voluntary departure and exited the country. See
Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 343 F.3d 961, 972 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (a
departure pursuant to an order of voluntary departure constitutes a break in
continuous physical presence). Rodriguez-Mancilla has not alleged that he was
misled about the consequences of accepting voluntary departure or that he
otherwise failed to obtain due process in the 1993 proceedings. Cf. Ibarra-Flores
v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Mancilla’s
motion for a continuance where he did not demonstrate good cause. See Baires v.
INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir. 1988); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. It follows that the
JTK/Research 2 06-70408
agency did not violate due process by denying Rodriguez-Mancilla’s motion to
continue. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for
a due process violation).
We reject Rodriguez-Mancilla’s due process claim regarding the IJ’s
reliance on hearsay evidence, because any error committed by the IJ was corrected
when the BIA’s decision did not rely on the evidence in question. See Colmenar v.
INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring prejudice to prevail on a due
process challenge); Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1013 (9th Cir. 1998) (any
error committed by the IJ may be rendered harmless by the BIA’s application of
the correct legal standard).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
JTK/Research 3 06-70408