Edras Cruz-Montoya v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDRAS NAUN CRUZ-MONTOYA, No. 16-70396 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-727-140 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Edras Naun Cruz-Montoya, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his motion 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 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). agency’s denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Cruz-Montoya’s motion for a continuance for lack of good cause. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1003.31(c); Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct). The record does not support Cruz-Montoya’s contention that the BIA ignored his arguments and failed to analyze relevant factors. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA must “merely . . . announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (citation omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-70396