United States v. 2020-01-13 | 18-72052 | JOSE VASQUEZ BARAJAS V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ALBERTO VASQUEZ BARAJAS,
AKA Jose Albert Vasquez, AKA Jose
Alberto Vasquez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-72052

Agency No. A092-383-135

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jose Alberto Vasquez Barajas, 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 decision denying his request for a continuance. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

*
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

JAN 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-72052
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009,
1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in concluding that Vasquez
Barajas failed to show good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29;
Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately considered evidence
and sufficiently announced its decision).
Vasquez Barajas’s due process claim fails because he has not established
prejudice from the denial of the continuance. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.