Pedro Enrique Munoz Bonilla v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO ENRIQUE MUNOZ BONILLA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74045
Agency No. A092-523-275
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Enrique Munoz Bonilla, 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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-74045
agency’s denial of a continuance, and we review de novo due process 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 or violate due process in denying
Munoz Bonilla’s motion for a third continuance, where he failed to file any
applications for relief from removal after the IJ had warned him of the
consequences of such failure, and he failed to establish good cause. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.31(c); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247; Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process
claim).
The record does not support Munoz Bonilla’s contention that the agency
failed to consider contentions or provide sufficient reasoning. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --