FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ERNESTO DE LA ROSA No. 14-73754
LOZANO, AKA Jose De La Rosa-Lozan,
AKA Jose Delarosalozano, AKA Jose Agency No. A095-758-034
Lozano,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFF B. SESSIONS, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Jose Ernesto De La Rosa Lozano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of 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 or violate due process in declining to
grant De La Rosa Lozano a second continuance to obtain counsel, where he did not
show good cause. De La Rosa Lozano had more than nine months to find
representation but did not attempt to do so until the week before his hearing, and
he received a full and fair hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a
continuance for good cause shown); Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“A court will grant a petition on due process grounds only if the
proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from
reasonably presenting his case.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)); Biwot v.
Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing factors to be
considered when deciding what constitutes a reasonable time to obtain counsel);
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a
due process claim).
2 14-73754
De La Rosa Lozano’s renewed request for a stay of removal is denied as
unnecessary because the court’s April 22, 2015, order granted a temporary stay of
removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73754