NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIRIO JUDITH LOPEZ DE IRIBE, AKA No. 14-72120
Lirio Judith Iribe,
Agency No. A076-609-553
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Lirio Judith Lopez De Iribe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Cabantac v. Holder, 736 F.3d 787,
792 (9th Cir. 2013). We review for abuse of discretion the grant of a continuance.
Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Lopez De Iribe is removable for an offense related to a controlled substance,
where the minute orders read in conjunction with the complaint shows her
conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11351 involved heroin. See
8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(B)(i) (an alien who has been convicted of a violation of any
law of a state, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled
substance is removable); Cabantac, 736 F.3d at 793-94 (“[W]here, as here, the . . .
minute order specifies that a defendant pleaded guilty to a particular count of the
criminal complaint or indictment, we can consider the facts alleged in that
count.”); Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2010) (despite
confusing nature of a document, it contained sufficient information to determine
the alien pled guilty to a controlled substance charge).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez De Iribe’s unexhausted contentions
regarding the lack of the phrase “as charged in the information,” which are
nonetheless foreclosed by United States v. Torre-Jimenez, 771 F.3d 1163, 1168-69
(9th Cir. 2014). See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We
lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative
2 14-72120
proceedings before the BIA.”).
To the extent we have jurisdiction under Garcia, the agency did not abuse its
discretion in granting the government a continuance to amend the removability
charges in the notice to appear, where the circumstances of Lopez De Iribe’s entry
and admission were not established until the hearing at which the government
requested the continuance. See Garcia, 798 F.3d at 880 (the jurisdictional bar in
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not apply to the denial of a procedural motion that
rests on a ground independent of the bar-triggering conviction); Owino v. Holder,
771 F.3d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 2014) (the reasonableness of a party’s actions is a
factor to consider when evaluating whether the grant or denial of a continuance
was an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, the agency did not err in denying Lopez
De Iribe’s motion to terminate. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(e) (“At any time during the
proceeding, additional or substituted charges of inadmissibility and/or deportability
and/or factual allegations may be lodged by the Service in writing.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-72120