Ingrid Lemus-Gonzalez 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).
The Honorable Michael W. Mosman, United States District Judge for***
the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
INGRID LEMUS-GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71403
Agency No. A098-402-186
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MOSMAN, District
Judge.***
Ingrid Lemus-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the denial of her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
DEC 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
protection under the Convention Against Torture for failure to establish identity
and to prosecute her claims in a timely fashion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.
When the BIA uses its summary affirmance procedure, the IJ’s decision
“becomes the BIA’s decision and we evaluate the IJ’s decision as we would that of
the Board.” Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Lanza
v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir. 2004)).
The IJ abused his discretion by denying Lemus a continuance to comply
with the fingerprinting requirement. See Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir.
2008); Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2008). As in Cui, the
evidence here was “vital to the success of [Lemus’s] petitions.” Cui, 538 F.3d at
1292-93. Granting a continuance would not have resulted in any cognizable
inconvenience to the court or to the government. See id. at 1295. The afternoon of
October 18, 2005, had already been reserved for Lemus-Gonzalez’s merits hearing,
“so allowing [Lemus] to present testimony on her claims during that time period
would not have required the IJ to devote any additional time to [Lemus’s] case.”
Id. Lemus had previously requested only one continuance, and her conduct was
not unreasonable. See id. at 1293. The record reflects that Lemus could neither
speak nor read English, so the English language written instructions given to her

-- 2 of 3 --

3
were of no help. Further, her attorney explained that he had failed to tell Lemus
she needed to submit her fingerprints. Finally, Lemus, who did submit several
other documents substantiating her identity, explained that she was nervous and
(like Cui) forgot this one requirement. See id. at 1291. The IJ’s stated reason for
denying relief, his “crowded calendar,” was not reasonable.
In these circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion for the IJ to deny
Lemus a continuance to submit her fingerprints, and so it was also an abuse of
discretion to deny her claims for relief outright on the basis of her failure to do so.
We grant Lemus’s petition and remand for further proceedings.
GRANT and REMAND.

-- 3 of 3 --