Noe Rodriguez-Gudino 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NOE RODRIGUEZ-GUDINO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71795
Agency No. A095-789-496
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Noe Rodriguez-Gudino, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand
and 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
FILED
MAR 01 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71795 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and the denial of a
motion to remand. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.
2008) (per curiam); Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008).
We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying a continuance to allow
Rodriguez-Gudino to seek post-conviction relief where Rodriguez-Gudino failed to
submit any evidence to the IJ that he was pursuing such relief. See Sandoval-Luna,
526 F.3d at 1247 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown). Further,
because the denial of the continuance was not error, the denial did not violate
Rodriguez-Gudino’s due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (“To prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings, [a
petitioner] must show error and substantial prejudice.”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Rodriguez-Gudino’s motion
to remand where the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its
broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant
remanding. See Romero-Ruiz, 538 F.3d at 1062 (BIA abuses its discretion if its
denial of a motion to remand is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).
Rodriguez-Gudino’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --