Edgar Ivan Soto Galaviz v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

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).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR IVAN SOTO GALAVIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74044
Agency No. A095-310-239
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Ivan Soto Galaviz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to continue. Our
FILED
DEC 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 06-74044 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246
(9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Soto Galaviz’s motion to
continue because his eligibility for relief was speculative and not immediately
available. See id. at 1247. It follows that the agency did not violate Soto Galaviz’s
due process rights by denying his motion to continue. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
Soto Galaviz failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005).
Soto Galaviz’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --