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.
Miguel Angel Zamundio OROZCO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Miguel Angel Zamundio Orozco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying a continuance and ordering removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s 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 correctly determined that Zamundio Orozco’s conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11378, for possession for sale of methamphetamine, is a drug trafficking aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), where the criminal complaint, change of plea form, and change of plea minutes, read in conjunction, establishes that the substance at issue was methamphetamine. See United States v. Vega-Ortiz, 822 F.3d 1031, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2016) (Section 11378 is divisible and a conviction under the statute is an aggravated felony where the substance at issue is punishable under the federal Controlled Substances Act).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Zamundio Orozco a fourth continuance for lack of good cause, where petitioner had no pending state court motions, he advised the IJ that he was voluntarily abandoning his applications for relief, and he requested that the IJ enter an order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1003.31(c); Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider in determining if the agency abused its discretion in denying a continuance request).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Zamundio Orozco’s unexhausted contentions regarding alleged due process violations by the IJ and the Department of Homeland Security. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIED DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 14-72556
Decided: April 16, 2018
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)