Aris Purwadi 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ARIS PURWADI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70457
Agency No. A095-634-741
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Aris Purwadi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals” (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision deeming abandoned his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70457 2
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de
novo questions of law, for abuse of discretion the denial of a request for a
continuance, and for substantial evidence factual findings. Cui v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The IJ orally instructed Purwadi and the Department of Homeland Security
provided written notification to Purwadi of the requirement to timely submit
himself for fingerprinting and of the consequences of a failure to do so, yet
Purwadi could not provide a reasonable explanation for his failure to comply with
the fingerprinting requirement. The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying
Purwadi’s request for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(d).
Accordingly, the IJ did not err in deeming abandoned Purwadi’s application
for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c);
Purwadi’s due process contention fails as well. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring agency error for a petitioner to establish a violation
of due process).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Purwadi’s claim that ineffective assistance
of counsel excuses his failure to timely submit himself for fingerprinting because

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70457 3
he failed to exhaust the claim before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --