Martin Rafael Diaz-Amezcua, a.k.a. Martin Diaz v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN RAFAEL DIAZ-AMEZCUA,
a.k.a. Martin Diaz,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70074
Agency No. A088-635-404
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Martin Rafael Diaz-Amezcua, 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
FILED
JAN 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

denial of a continuance and review de novo constitutional claims. Sandoval-Luna
v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Diaz-Amezcua’s motion
for a continuance to await Congress’ enactment of immigration reform or to wait
for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to adjudicate his alleged request for
prosecutorial discretion, because he failed to demonstrate good cause for a
continuance. 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)).
Because there was no error in the agency’s decision, it follows that Diaz-
Amezcua’s due process rights were not violated. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-70074 2

-- 2 of 2 --