YANET PRADO-BACILLO, AKA Yanet Bacillo Prado v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANET PRADO-BACILLO, AKA Yanet
Bacillo Prado,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70951
Agency No. A059-926-129
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Yanet Prado-Bacillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion for remand
and dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her
request for a continuance and entering an order of removal. Our jurisdiction is
FILED
NOV 24 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 3 --

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part
and deny in part the petition for review.
Because Prado-Bacillo conceded that she is removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for having been convicted of two or more crimes involving
moral turpitude, our jurisdiction is limited to colorable constitutional claims and
questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). Accordingly, we lack
jurisdiction to consider her contention that the agency abused its discretion in
denying her requests for a continuance and for a remand.
Prado-Bacillo has not established a due process claim arising from her
alleged potential eligibility for other forms of relief, such as a U visa or
prosecutorial discretion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to
prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).
Prado-Bacillo sought a continuance in order to marry her United States
citizen fiancé and apply for adjustment of status, but Prado-Bacillo’s fiancé is now
deceased. Accordingly, Prado-Bacillo’s claim that her right to due process was
violated by the denial of a continuance to pursue adjustment of status is moot. See
Pedroza-Padilla v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1362, 1364 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2007); see also
United States v. Strong, 489 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007) (“An appeal is moot
13-70951 2

-- 2 of 3 --

when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any
effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-70951 3

-- 3 of 3 --