Marisol Acevedo-Rojas v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARISOL ACEVEDO-ROJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71852
Agency No. A095-787-616
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Marisol Acevedo-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
FILED
JAN 26 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

continue and review de novo claims of due process violations. Sandoval-Luna v.
Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Acevedo-Rojas’s motion
for a second continuance to seek post-conviction relief where Acevedo-Rojas
failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a
continuance for good cause shown). Acevedo-Rojas conceded removability, she
had been granted a prior continuance for the same purpose, and post-conviction
relief remained a speculative possibility at the time of her final hearing. See
Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (the denial of a continuance was within the
agency’s discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner).
Acevedo-Rojas’s due process claim fails because she has not established
error. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process challenge).
We deny Acevedo-Rojas’s request that the court take judicial notice of
country conditions in Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-71852

-- 2 of 2 --