Francisco Romero-Negrete 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRANCISCO ROMERO-NEGRETE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70907
Agency No. A095-766-813
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013**
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Romero-Negrete, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his request for a continuance. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-70907 2
agency’s denial of a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243,
1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Romero-Negrete’s
request for a two-year continuance for failure to show good cause where, at the
time of the hearing, his daughter was not eligible to apply for a visa petition on his
behalf and his eligibility for adjustment of status remained only a speculative
possibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for
good cause shown); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247.
In his opening brief, Romero-Negrete fails to address, and therefore has
waived any challenge to, the BIA’s determinations regarding his due process and
cancellation of removal claims. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th
Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in the opening brief may be deemed waived).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Romero-Negrete’s contention that the IJ did
not provide a reasoned explanation for denying the motion to continue because he
failed to raise this claim before the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --