FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS MARTINEZ-NAVARRO, No. 13-74230
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-600-574
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Martinez-Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying his request for a continuance.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
denial of a motion for a continuance, and review de novo claims of due process
violations. 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 in denying Martinez-Navarro’s
motion for a further continuance to seek post-conviction relief where Martinez-
Navarro failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a
motion for a continuance for good cause shown). Martinez-Navarro conceded
removability, he had been granted three prior continuances, and post-conviction
relief remained a speculative possibility at the time of his final hearing. See
Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (the denial of a continuance was within the
agency’s discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner);
Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to
grant a continuance based on . . . speculations.”).
To the extent Martinez-Navarro contends that the denial of a continuance
violated due process by preventing him from pursuing post-conviction relief, his
claim fails because he has not established error or prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-74230