Jose Luis Santillan Rangel v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS SANTILLAN RANGEL,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72481
Agency No. A095-733-576
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Santillan Rangel, 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 (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a
FILED
APR 18 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 3 --

continuance and review de novo constitutional claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,
526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Santillan Rangel’s motion
for a continuance where he failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an
IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown); Sandoval-Luna,
526 F.3d at 1247 (the denial of a continuance was within the agency’s discretion
where relief was not immediately available to the petitioner). The agency applied
the correct legal standard in deciding Santillan Rangel’s motion to continue, where
the agency invoked the applicable “good cause” standard and cited pertinent legal
authorities. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009)
(concluding that the agency applies the correct legal standard where it expressly
cites and applies relevant case law in rendering its decision).
We reject Santillan Rangel’s contention that the BIA erred in not specifically
addressing his contention that the IJ failed to discuss the reasons for denying the
continuance, where the BIA conducted a de novo review and provided its own
conclusions based on Santillan Rangel’s failure to establish eligibility for the relief
requested. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is
required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its
13-72481 2

-- 2 of 3 --

decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard
and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
Santillan Rangel’s due process claim fails for lack of error or prejudice from
the agency’s denial of the continuance, where he has not established eligibility for
any relief requested. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-72481 3

-- 3 of 3 --