NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISMAEL JIMENEZ-MUNIZ, No. 15-71081
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-827-328
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.
Ismael Jimenez-Muniz, 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 removal order denying his request for a continuance. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 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 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).
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
Jimenez-Muniz’s request for a continuance to await the outcome of the appeal of
his conviction, where success on the appeal was speculative and Jimenez-Muniz
conceded to the BIA his appeal had been denied. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed,
569 F.3d at 1012 (outlining factors to consider when reviewing the agency’s denial
of a continuance); Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014)
(“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation
of rights and prejudice.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Jimenez-Muniz’s contention that the agency
erred in declining to administratively close his proceedings. Diaz-Covarrubias v.
Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 15-71081