Seung Choon Hwang, a.k.a Seung Choon Son v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEUNG CHOON HWANG, a.k.a Seung
Choon Son, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 07-71164
08-71300
Agency Nos. A075-650-088
A075-650-089
A075-650-090
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Seung Choon Hwang and her
family, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing their appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for adjustment of status, and
FILED
JUN 09 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-71164/08-71300 2
denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-
Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de novo
claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). In No. 07-71164, we deny the petition for
review, and in No. 08-71300, we dismiss the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying a continuance on the ground
that petitioners did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may
grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown); see also Sandoval-Luna,
526 F.3d at 1247 (IJ did not abuse discretion in denying a continuance where alien
had no approved visa petition and no relief was immediately available).
Petitioners’ due process claim fails because they cannot demonstrate prejudice.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice
for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v.
INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-71164/08-71300 3
The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth
Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2004),
shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.
In No. 07-71164: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
In No. 08-71300: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --