Jesus Ruiz Nicolas; Olivia Perez Monteagudo 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).
KS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS RUIZ NICOLAS; OLIVIA PEREZ
MONTEAGUDO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75125
Agency Nos. A079-521-902
A079-521-903
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.
Jesus Ruiz Nicolas and Olivia Perez Monteagudo, husband and wife and
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration
FILED
FEB 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KS/Research 06-75125 2
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal and
denying their motion to continue. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue and de novo
claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v.
Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not violate due process by denying petitioners’ motion to
continue because petitioners did not establish good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29
(an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown); see Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
We lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to
evaluate their hardship evidence in the aggregate, because it does not amount to a
colorable constitutional claim. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980
(9th Cir. 2009).
We also lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s February
21, 2008, order because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See
Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --