NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATIVIDAD RAMOS-MARROQUIN, No. 16-71341
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-855-677
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Natividad Ramos-Marroquin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her 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).
denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. 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 for lack of good cause
Ramos-Marroquin’s motion for a further continuance, where Ramos-Marroquin
was not eligible to adjust her status, and post-conviction relief remained a
speculative possibility at the time of her final hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29;
Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (outlining factors for the reviewing court to consider
when reviewing the agency’s denial of a continuance); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d
1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based
on . . . speculations.”); cf. Malilia v. Holder, 632 F.3d 598, 606 (9th Cir. 2011)
(listing factors the agency should consider in determining whether to continue
proceedings for adjudication of a pending visa petition).
The record does not support Ramos-Marroquin’s contention that the agency
failed to apply the correct standard or consider relevant factors in denying the
continuance.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 16-71341