FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS DULTRA DY, No. 15-70956
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-658-154
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Dultra Dy, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order denying his request for a continuance. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
denial of a continuance and review 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 abuse its discretion in denying Dy’s request for a further
continuance for failure to demonstrate good cause, where his first visa petition had
been denied and he did not show a likelihood of success on his second visa
petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (outlining factors for
the reviewing court to consider when reviewing the agency’s denial of a
continuance); Malilia v. Holder, 632 F.3d 598, 606 (9th Cir. 2011) (listing factors
the agency should consider in determining whether to continue proceedings for
adjudication of a pending visa petition).
Dy’s contention that the agency did not apply the correct standard or
consider the relevant factors in denying the continuance is not supported by the
record. 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); Malilia, 632 F.3d at
606 (applying factors set forth in Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-70956