FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ALBERTO GUILLEN-COREA, No. 13-73531
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-992-660
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Luis Alberto Guillen-Corea, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s denial of his request for a continuance, and denying a
motion to remand. 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 continuance and the denial of a motion to
remand. Malilia v. Holder, 632 F.3d 598, 602 (9th Cir. 2011); 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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Guillen-Corea’s request
for a fifth continuance where there was no pending I-130 visa petition at the time
of the continuance request and Guillen-Corea’s first I-130 had been denied. See
Matter of Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 790-92 (BIA 2009) (listing factors to
consider when determining if a continuance is warranted when an I-130 petition is
pending, including the viability of the petition and previous denials (emphasis
added)); cf. Malilia, 632 F.3d at 606-07 (applying Hashmi factors).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand where
Guillen-Corea provided no supporting evidence to prove the viability of his second
I-130 petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Guillen-Corea’s request for prosecutorial
discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 13-73531