NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO BAUTISTA-VASQUEZ, AKA No. 16-72769
Pedro Bautista, AKA Pedro
Bautistavasquez, Agency No. A200-865-208
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Bautista-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance. Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. 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 or violate due process in
denying Bautista-Vasquez’s request for a continuance where he did not
demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (factors
considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse
of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded); Carrillo-Gonzalez v.
INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (statements by counsel are not evidence);
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial
prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
To the extent Bautista-Vasquez challenges the BIA’s 2015 order dismissing
his appeal from the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction to
consider those contentions because this petition for review 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 denying an alien relief from removal
but remanding the case to an IJ for voluntary departure proceedings is a final order
of removal from which a timely petition for judicial review must be filed).
2 16-72769
We do not consider the extra-record information discussed in Bautista-
Vasquez’s opening brief because the court’s review is normally limited to the
administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is limited to
the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010)
(stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-72769