Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MARIA GUADALUPE MENDOZA DE RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
Maria Guadalupe Mendoza de Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying a continuance, denying cancellation of removal, and ordering her removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo due process claims and questions of law. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Mendoza de Ramirez's request for a continuance for failure to show good cause, where she had been granted several continuances over more than three years and was unable to demonstrate the continuous residence required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Medina-Nunez v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2015) (acceptance into Family Unity Program did not constitute being “admitted” for purposes of cancellation of removal). Accordingly, to the extent Mendoza de Ramirez raises a due process claim, it fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza de Ramirez's unexhausted contentions regarding mandatory withdrawal of counsel or alleged ineffective assistance of her prior counsel. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 15-72274
Decided: February 22, 2017
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)