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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 20 2013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
ENRIQUE BERMUDEZ-ALONSO, No. 11-72922
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-953-465
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.
Enrique Bermudez-Alonso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to continue his removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
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).
discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,
526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and review de novo questions of
law and due process claims, Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921
(9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Bermudez-Alonso’s
motion to continue in order to wait for the enactment of comprehensive
immigration reform, because he failed to 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)).
Bermudez-Alonso conceded his ineligibility for relief from removal under current
law, and the basis for his motion remained a merely speculative possibility at the
time of his removal hearing. See id. (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a
continuance based on . . . speculations.”); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d
at 1247 (rejecting an abuse-of-discretion challenge to an IJ’s refusal to continue
removal proceedings where “no relief was then immediately available”).
The agency correctly considered the relevant legal standard and provided a
reasoned explanation for its decision denying Bermudez-Alonso’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
2 11-72922
enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely
reacted.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The agency did not violate Bermudez-Alonso’s due process rights by
denying his motion to continue, because he received a full and fair hearing. See
Vargas-Hernandez, 497 F.3d at 926-27 (“Where an alien is given a full and fair
opportunity to be represented by counsel, prepare an application for . . . relief, and
to present testimony and other evidence in support of the application, he or she has
been provided with due process.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-72922