Luis Larios v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

06-71318Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJan 20, 2010

Full text

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS LARIOS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-71318
Agency No. A078-651-315
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Luis Larios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and his motion for a
FILED
JAN 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 06-71318 2
continuance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v.
Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and review de novo
claims of due process violations, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107
(9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Larios’ motion for a
continuance because Larios did not demonstrate good cause. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause
shown); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (denial of continuance was
within IJ’s discretion where relief was not immediately available). Larios’ due
process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
Larios has waived any challenge to the denial of his cancellation of removal
application. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.