NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIN SU, No. 15-71870
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-200-194
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Xin Su, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion for a
*
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).
continuance. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Su’s request for a
continuance and deeming her applications for relief abandoned, where the IJ
warned her three times that she was required to provide her biometrics by the next
hearing, she indicated that she understood the consequences of failing to comply
with the IJ’s instructions, she was provided written instructions by the government,
and she failed to present good cause for her failure to comply. See 8 C.F.R. §§
1003.29 (an IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown”),
1003.47(c) (failure to provide biometrics as instructed by the IJ constitutes
abandonment of the application for relief); cf. Cui, 538 F.3d at 1293-95 (requiring
a continuance where the alien did not receive adequate notice of the requirement to
submit fingerprints).
We do not reach Su’s contentions regarding her failure to provide adequate
corroborating evidence in support of her asylum application or whether the BIA
should have granted her equitable relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532,
538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues
unnecessary to the results they reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-71870
Xin Su v. Jefferson Sessions
Combined Opinion