Alfredo Saldana-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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFREDO SALDANA-RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70522
Agency No. A088-884-090
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Saldana-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70522 2
denial of a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Saldana-Ramirez
failed to show good cause for a continuance pending the completion of post-
conviction relief proceedings in state court where no favorable evidence was
excluded as a result of the denial and the requested continuance would have been
indefinite in nature. See id. at 1012-14. Contrary to Saldana-Ramirez’s
contention, the agency did not apply an incorrect legal standard in ruling on his
motion.
We deny Saldana-Ramirez’s motion for judicial notice of documents outside
the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc). Accordingly, we deny as moot the government’s motion to strike.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --