United States v. 2020-03-12 | 19-71042 | HIPOLITO TINAJERO-AMADOR V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HIPOLITO TINAJERO-AMADOR, AKA
Hipolito Tinajero Amador,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71042

Agency No. A099-974-548

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Hipolito Tinajero-Amador, 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 his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”),

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

MAR 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-71042
cancellation of removal, and his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a
continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We review
de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v.
Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We grant the petition for review and
remand.
The IJ abused her discretion by denying Tinajero-Amador’s motion for a
continuance without explaining the basis for this decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29;
see also Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1014 (“Absent an explanation from the IJ, we have no
choice but to conclude that the denial of the continuance was arbitrary and
unreasonable.”). Tinajero-Amador contends that the denial of the continuance
violated his right to due process. Specifically, Tinajero-Amador asserts that the IJ
deprived him of a full and fair hearing by preventing him from reasonably
presenting his case and testimony. We agree. See Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603
F.3d 1104, 1109-11 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of continuance was an abuse of
discretion and resulted in denial of full and fair hearing); Cinapian v. Holder, 567
F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Remand is generally necessary when an alien is
prevented from reasonably presenting her case or when an IJ’s actions prevent the
introduction of significant testimony.”). Thus, we grant the petition for review and
remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See

3 19-71042
INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Tinajero-Amador’s remaining
contentions regarding the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal,
CAT, and cancellation of removal.
The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.