Antonio Chavez-Montejano, a.k.a. Antonio Chavez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ANTONIO CHAVEZ-MONTEJANO,
a.k.a. Antonio Chavez,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 08-70021
08-73384
Agency No. A075-098-140
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions, Antonio Chavez-Montejano, a native and
citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order denying his motion to reissue its previous decision and the order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision to deny him a
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70021 2
continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, see Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,
964 (9th Cir. 2002), and the denial of a motion to continue, see Sandoval-Luna v.
Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny the petitions
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reissue its August 29,
2006, order where the record indicates the order was mailed to Chavez-
Montejano’s counsel’s address of record, see Haroutunian v. INS, 87 F.3d 374,
375-76 (9th Cir. 1996) (a properly addressed cover letter creates a presumption of
mailing on the date of the cover letter), and Chavez-Montejano has not submitted
sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of receipt, cf. Singh v. Gonzales,
494 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2007); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Chavez-Montejano’s
motion for a continuance because Chavez-Montejano did not demonstrate good
cause. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1246-47; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --