Gabino Vega-Jimenez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABINO VEGA-JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70223
Agency No. A073-915-578
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Gabino Vega-Jimenez, 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 denying his request for a continuance and
denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
OCT 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-70223 2
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. 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 in denying Vega-Jimenez’s request
for a continuance where he failed to show good cause. See id. at 1012.
To the extent Vega-Jimenez challenges the agency’s determination that he
did not merit voluntary departure as a matter of discretion, we lack jurisdiction to
review this determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Gil v. Holder, 651
F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 2011).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that the
evidence Vega-Jimenez submitted with his motion to remand would not alter the
prior discretionary determination denying voluntary departure. See Fernandez v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen
where “the only question presented is whether [the] new evidence altered the prior,
underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the
hardship standard.” (internal quotations and brackets omitted)); see also Movsisian
v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2005) (A motion to reopen filed while

-- 2 of 3 --

12-70223 3
an appeal is pending before the BIA is treated as a motion to remand to the IJ for
further proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --