FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA NOEMI SARABIA, No. 11-73705
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-228-012
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Maria Noemi Sarabia, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions pro se for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her
appeal from a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her motion to
continue her removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue.
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Sarabia’s motion to
continue to await adjudication of an immigrant visa petition that her daughter had
filed on her behalf, because Sarabia did not demonstrate good cause for a
continuance. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n IJ
‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’” (citation omitted)).
The IJ had previously granted Sarabia eleven continuances for this purpose, and
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had issued a notice of intent to deny
the visa petition based on reliable evidence that Sarabia had engaged in marriage
fraud. See Matter of Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 792, 794 (BIA 2009)
(observing that “a history of continuances being granted . . . for the adjudication of
a pending [visa petition], coupled with other relevant factors, may support a
decision to move forward with the case”; and identifying “no obligation to
continue ‘when there is a reliable basis to conclude that the visa petition . . . will
ultimately be denied’” (citation omitted)), cited with approval by Malilia v. Holder,
632 F.3d 598, 606 (9th Cir. 2011).
2 11-73705
The agency correctly considered the relevant legal standard and provided a
reasoned explanation for its decision denying Sarabia’s motion to continue. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[The BIA must]
consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a
reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Sarabia has waived any challenge to the BIA’s determination that the IJ
lacked authority to administratively close her case. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d
1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e generally will not take up arguments not raised
in an alien’s opening brief before this court.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Sarabia’s contention that the IJ did not
inform her of her eligibility for voluntary departure, because Sarabia failed to
exhaust this contention before the BIA. See id. (“We lack jurisdiction to review
legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the
BIA.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 11-73705