FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN MIRANDA-SANCHEZ, No. 11-71694
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-383-065
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Juan Miranda-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming the
decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) to deny Miranda-Sanchez’s motion to
continue his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
*
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).
Reviewing for an abuse of discretion an IJ’s denial of a motion to continue,
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), we
deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Miranda-Sanchez’s motion to
continue because Miranda-Sanchez did not demonstrate good cause for a
continuance, see Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[A]n IJ
‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’” (citation omitted)),
where, at the time of the hearing, Miranda-Sanchez’s eligibility for adjustment of
status remained only a remote possibility due to the current unavailability of a visa
based on his fourth-preference family-sponsored visa petition, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(i)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(g)(1); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d
at 1247 (finding that the IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying a continuance
because, among other reasons, relief from removal in the form of adjustment of
status was not immediately available to the petitioner at the time of the hearing);
Matter of Rajah, 25 I. & N. Dec. 127, 136 (BIA 2009) (holding that an immigrant
who has a prima facie approvable visa petition and application for adjustment of
status may not be able to show good cause for a continuance if visa availability is
too remote).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-71694