NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERNESTO SALAS-ANDAZOLA, AKA No. 17-72688
Ernesto Salas,
Agency No. A091-867-824
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Ernesto Salas-Andazola, 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 order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance, and review
*
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).
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 err or abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good
cause Salas-Andazola’s request for a continuance, where he had eleven months to
prepare for his final hearing, and he failed to explain the relevance of the evidence
he sought to obtain. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing
factors to consider). We reject Salas-Andazola’s contention that the agency failed
to consider relevant factors or insufficiently articulated its decision. See Mendez-
Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the agency
applies the correct legal standard where it expressly cites and applies relevant case
law in rendering its decision); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th
Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently
announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 17-72688