VICTOR YANEZ-RESENDIZ, AKA Victor Yanez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR YANEZ-RESENDIZ, AKA Victor
Yanez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73328
Agency No. A206-520-275
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Victor Yanez-Resendiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decisions denying his request for a continuance and
denying reconsideration of the determination that he abandoned his opportunity to
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73328
file a motion to suppress evidence and terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009), and the denial
of a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Yanez-Resendiz’s request
for a further continuance for lack of good cause, where he did not file his motion to
suppress and terminate prior to the IJ’s deadline and therefore waived his
opportunity to do so. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1003.31(c); Ahmed, 569 F.3d at
1012 (listing factors to consider).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in
denying Yanez-Resendiz’s motion to reconsider the abandonment of his motion to
suppress and terminate, where he did not identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s
determination. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23(b)(2), 1003.31(c); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a
due process challenge).
We do not reach Yanez-Resendiz’s contention that evidence should have
been suppressed on the basis of an alleged egregious violation of the Fourth
Amendment. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73328
(review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --