Cezareo Sanchez Sosa 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).
RA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CEZAREO SANCHEZ SOSA; PAZ
ROSALBA SANCHEZ; ERICK
RODOLFO SANCHEZ CRESPO;
SUSANA MAYREL SANCHEZ
CRESPO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73167
Agency Nos. A095-308-750
A095-308-751
A095-308-752
A095-308-753
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Cezareo Sanchez Sosa and Paz Rosalba Sanchez, husband and wife, and
their adult children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the
FILED
APR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RA/Research 07-73167 2
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order, and denying their motion to remand.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.
2005), and the denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526
F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and grant in part the
petition for review and remand.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to
remand proceedings to apply for adjustment of status because they failed to
establish prima facie eligibility for such relief. See Ochoa-Amaya v. Gonzales, 479
F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2007).
The IJ abused his discretion in failing to grant petitioners’ motion for a
continuance so that they could pursue a U visa application. They submitted
appropriate documentation to establish that they were eligible for such relief. See
Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1013-14 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Ramirez
Sanchez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1254, 1255-56 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we need not reach petitioners’ due process contention.
Each party shall bear their own costs.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --