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.
Esteban Rene REYES, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Esteban Rene Reyes, 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 (“IJ”) decision ordering him removed. Specifically, Reyes challenges the IJ's denial of his motion for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for continuance and review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. 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 abuse its discretion in concluding that Reyes failed to show good cause to grant his third request for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Gonzalez v. INS, 82 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 1996) (no abuse of discretion where multiple continuances had already been granted).
To the extent Reyes contends the IJ violated his right to due process at his December 2017 hearing, we lack jurisdiction to consider the issue because Reyes failed to raise it to the BIA. See Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]e may not entertain due process claims based on correctable procedural errors unless the alien raised them below.”).
The BIA did not err in concluding the IJ did not violate Reyes's right to due process by proceeding in the absence of a waiver of counsel at his July 2018 hearing. See Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2019) (concluding the IJ did not violate the applicant's right to counsel where the applicant was provided “reasonable time to locate counsel”); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
We reject as unsupported by the record Reyes's contentions that the agency otherwise erred in the handling of his case.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
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. 20-72405
Decided: May 26, 2021
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)