Isaiivan Huerta-Castillo, a.k.a. Isaiivan Castillo-Huerta 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ISAIIVAN HUERTA-CASTILLO, a.k.a.
Isaiivan Castillo-Huerta,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 10-70729
10-72764
Agency No. A088-723-014
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Isaiivan Huerta-Castillo, a native
and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
FILED
SEP 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-70729 2
removal order, and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction
is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion for a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009),
and the denial of a motion to reopen, Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petitions for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in concluding that Huerta-Castillo failed
to show good cause for a continuance where the documents requiring additional
time to review were available at least seven months prior to the hearing. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ has authority to grant a continuance upon a showing of good
cause); Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012. It follows that Huerta-Castillo’s due process
claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Huerta-Castillo failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
qualifying relatives. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.
2009). Huerta-Castillo’s contention that the agency applied the wrong legal
standard is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable
constitutional or legal challenge. See id. at 978-80 (court lacks jurisdiction over
abuse of discretion challenges cloaked as constitutional or legal questions).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-70729 3
The BIA did not err in failing to address Huerta-Castillo’s arguments
regarding continuous physical presence because the BIA’s determination that he
failed to establish the requisite hardship was dispositive. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to review Huerta-Castillo’s motion to reopen as it
relates to his original three qualifying relatives because it concerns the same basic
hardship grounds as his original application for cancellation of removal. See
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir. 2006) (where there has
already been an unreviewable discretionary determination this court lacks
jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen proceedings).
To the extent Huerta-Castillo presented non-cumulative evidence of
hardship to new qualifying relatives in his motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse
its discretion in denying Huerta-Castillo’s motion on the ground that the evidence
he submitted was insufficient to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of
removal. See Garcia, 621 F.3d at 912 (prima facie eligibility is demonstrated by a
showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for
relief have been satisfied).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --