NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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