JUAN GUTIERREZ-GALINDO, AKA Juan Guiterrez v. DANA BOENTE, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN GUTIERREZ-GALINDO, AKA
Juan Guiterrez,
Petitioner,
v.
DANA BOENTE, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72592
Agency No. A205-528-216
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Gutierrez-Galindo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion 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
FEB 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-72592
agency’s denial of a continuance. 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 in denying for lack of good cause
Gutierrez-Galindo’s motion for a continuance to request that the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reconsider its prior denial of his request for
prosecutorial discretion. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“[A]n IJ ‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’” (citation
omitted)). Gutierrez-Galindo provided no evidence to support his contention that
the agency would change its decision issued only two months prior, and the basis
for the motion remained merely a speculative possibility at the time of his final
removal hearing. See id. (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based
on . . . speculations.”).
The record does not support Gutierrez-Galindo’s contention that the IJ failed to
provide sufficient reasoning. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th
Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --