Luis Alberto Ramirez 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).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ALBERTO RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74605
Agency No. A070-967-419
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Luis Alberto Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for continuance of removal
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AR/Research 07-74605 2
proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569
F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for
continuance because the record did not show that Alberto Ramirez’s counsel took
any steps to acquire a second medical opinion regarding the health of Alberto
Ramirez’s qualifying relative before the merits hearing. See id. at 1012-13
(evaluating, among other factors, the reasonableness of the alien’s conduct).
Alberto Ramirez’s contentions that the agency violated his due process
rights by denying the motion for continuance and marking “for identification
purposes only” some of his proffered hardship documentation do not amount to
colorable constitutional claims. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926,
930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged
due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would
invoke our jurisdiction.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --