Guillermo Negrete-Ruiz v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO NEGRETE-RUIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73879
Agency No. A099-512-302
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Negrete-Ruiz, 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”) decision denying his request for a continuance. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
* 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
APR 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-73879
denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).
We review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042
(9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.
Negrete-Ruiz abandoned any challenge to the agency’s determination that he
did not establish good cause for a continuance to allow him to marry and apply for
adjustment of status through a spouse. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument
are deemed abandoned.”).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Negrete-Ruiz’s request
for a continuance to allow him to marry and obtain a qualifying relative for
purposes of cancellation of removal, because he did not demonstrate good cause.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (factors to be considered in
determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of
discretion); see also Hui Ran Mu v. Barr, 936 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2019)
(“Although the [agency] did not expressly address the Ahmed factors, the IJ
sufficiently outlined why good cause [for a continuance] did not exist.”). Negrete-
Ruiz’s contentions that the agency erred in its legal analysis fail. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency adequately considered evidence
and sufficiently announced its decision).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-73879
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --