MARITZA IVONNE AVELAR, AKA Maritza Cruz v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARITZA IVONNE AVELAR, AKA
Maritza Cruz,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72448
Agency No. A088-968-014
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Maritza Ivonne Avelar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying her request for a
continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
MAR 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, and review de novo questions
of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Avelar’s request for a
further continuance where she did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (factors considered in determining whether
the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of
the evidence excluded as a result of the denial).
We reject Avelar’s contentions that the BIA ignored her arguments, failed to
provide a reasoned explanation for its actions, or applied an incorrect legal
standard, where the agency invoked the applicable “good cause” legal standard and
cited pertinent legal authorities in analyzing her claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder,
597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not “write an exegesis on every
contention” (internal citation omitted)). Moreover, Avelar’s contentions that the IJ
had granted no prior continuances, and that the IJ’s denial of a continuance
violated her statutory right to counsel lack merit, where the record reflects that the
IJ gave Avelar two opportunities to gather information and file any applications for
relief, and where Avelar was represented by her attorney of choice throughout
proceedings. Accordingly, Avelar’s due process claims must fail. See Lata v. INS,
14-72448 2

-- 2 of 3 --

204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72448 3

-- 3 of 3 --