Israel Bonilla v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

14-71974Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit23 mar 2016

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISRAEL BONILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71974
Agency No. A094-206-073
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Israel Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying a continuance. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of
FILED
MAR 23 2016
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 --

a motion for a continuance. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Bonilla a further
continuance to allow him to submit his fingerprints for biometric analysis, where
the IJ instructed Bonilla orally and in writing of the deadline for being
fingerprinted and of the consequences of failure to meet the deadline, and where
Bonilla failed to present good cause for his failure to comply. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.47(c) (“Failure to file necessary documentation and comply with the
requirements to provide biometrics . . . within the time allowed by the immigration
judge’s order, constitutes abandonment of the application and the immigration
judge may enter an appropriate order dismissing the application unless the
applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause.”); cf. Cui,
538 F.3d at 1293-95 (requiring a continuance where the alien did not receive
adequate notice of the requirement to submit fingerprints).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-71974

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.