NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE DANIEL MAZARIEGOS PEREZ, No. 14-71094
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-787-197
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Daniel Mazariegos Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying a continuance. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 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).
denial of a continuance. 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 Mazariegos Perez’s
request for a continuance, where he waited until his 2012 hearing to seek
prosecutorial discretion, and it was speculative whether the Department of
Homeland Security would exercise discretion. See id. (factors considered in
determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion
include the nature of the evidence excluded and the reasonableness of the
immigrant’s conduct); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011)
(agency not required to grant a continuance based on speculation).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mazariegos Perez’s contentions regarding
the denial of asylum and related relief in the BIA’s September 22, 2011, order,
where this petition is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The
petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final
order of removal.”); Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2016) (a BIA
order remanding solely for voluntary departure proceedings is a final order of
removal); Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688, 691 (9th Cir. 2016) (same).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 14-71094