Benjamin Lopez Ayala 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN LOPEZ AYALA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71959
Agency No. A095-787-470
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Benjamin Lopez Ayala, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo constitutional questions and questions of law, Khan v.
FILED
OCT 6 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71959 2
Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a request for a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th
Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Lopez Ayala’s conviction for inflicting corporal injury on his spouse, in
violation of California Penal Code § 273.5(a), is a crime of domestic violence
under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) that renders him ineligible for cancellation of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C); Vasquez-Hernandez v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1053, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2010).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez Ayala’s request for
a sixth continuance to allow him to seek post-conviction relief. See Sandoval-Luna
v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency did not abuse discretion
in denying a second continuance for alien to pursue alternative application for
relief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez Ayala’s contentions that are
unrelated to his final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (conferring
jurisdiction over final orders of removal). Lopez Ayala’s remaining contentions
are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --