United States v. 2020-06-09 | 18-71586 | JOSE SERRANO-FLORES V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ANTONIO SERRANO-FLORES,
AKA Juan Sanchez-Ruiz, AKA Jose
Serrano,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-71586

Agency No. A205-716-726

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Jose Antonio Serrano-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying voluntary
departure and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying his application for cancellation of removal and his motion to continue.

*
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

JUN 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-71586
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. Ahmed
v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of
cancellation of removal, where Serrano-Flores did not show a legal or
constitutional error. See Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 2012);
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Because the discretionary determination is dispositive,
we do not address Serrano-Flores’s contentions regarding credibility and hardship.
See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the courts and the
agency are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results).
The BIA did not err in reviewing the IJ’s voluntary departure decision de
novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). To the extent Serrano-Flores contends the
BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding, this is not supported.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Serrano-Flores’s motion
to continue, where he did not show eligibility for adjustment of status, had been in
removal proceedings and represented for almost two years, did not show why he
could not have timely submitted evidence of hardship, and was admonished about
the consequences of not meeting the document submission deadline. See Ahmed,

3 18-71586
569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider when reviewing the agency’s denial of
a continuance). Serrano-Flores’s contention that the agency did not consider the
proper factors is not supported.
Serrano-Flores’s contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his
proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, No. 18-70855, 2020 WL
2123371, at *2 (9th Cir. May 5, 2020) (notice to appear “need not contain time,
date, and place information to vest an immigration court with jurisdiction if such
information is provided before the hearing”).
PETITON FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.