FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE MAGANA-VILLALVAZO, No. 15-70580
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-089-286
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Magana-Villalvazo, 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance.
*
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).
Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Magana-Villalvazo’s
request for a continuance for failure to show good cause, where he did not show he
would be statutorily eligible for the relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ
may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown); Ahmed, 569 F.3d at
1012.
Magana-Villalvazo’s contention that the agency did not properly consider
the factors in evaluating whether he had shown good cause for a continuance is not
supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010) (“What is required is merely that [the agency] consider[s] the issues raised,
and announce[s] its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to
perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citations and
quotation marks omitted)).
To the extent Magana-Villalvazo contends the IJ erred in not addressing
whether his voluntary return was lawful, he failed to exhaust this contention. See
Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-70580