Alexander Omar Romero v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEXANDER OMAR ROMERO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71746
Agency No. A077-428-686
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Alexander Omar Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding Romero abandoned his
application for relief and denying a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
JUL 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a motion to
continue and the decision to deem an application waived. Taggar v. Holder, 736
F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We review de novo claims of due process violations
in immigration proceedings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Romero abandoned his
application for relief when he did not file it by the deadline the IJ imposed. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (an IJ “may set and extend time limits for the filing of
applications” and if an application “is not filed within the time set by the [IJ], the
opportunity to file that application . . . shall be deemed waived”); Taggar, 736 F.3d
at 889 (petitioner waived application where she did not file it by the due date the IJ
set). The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in upholding the IJ’s denial of
Romero’s motion for a continuance where he had already been given multiple
continuances and did not show good cause for another continuance. See Vargas-
Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2007).
Finally, we deny Romero’s due process claims, including his contentions
regarding the IJ’s conduct. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process challenge to proceedings).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-71746 2

-- 2 of 2 --