United States v. 2020-09-11 | 19-72279 | MARIO MIRANDA CASTRO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO MIRANDA CASTRO, AKA Luis
Hernandez Miranda,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-72279

Agency No. A092-724-394

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Mario Miranda Castro, 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 request 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

SEP 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-72279
denial of a motion to continue and review de novo claims of due process
violations. 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 by denying Miranda Castro’s motion
for a continuance to seek post-conviction relief for failure to show good cause,
where post-conviction relief remained speculative at the time of his final hearing.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on . . . speculations.”).
Miranda Castro’s due process claim fails, where he has not established
prejudice. See Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.