Felicisima Albiola Espinosa v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELICISIMA ALBIOLA ESPINOSA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72495
Agency No. A088-224-046
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Felicisima Albiola Espinosa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, and
FILED
AUG 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

review de novo due process claims. 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 in denying a continuance, where
Albiola Espinosa had already been given three continuances and she did not show
good cause for an additional continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant
a motion for a continuance for good cause shown). Albiola Espinosa’s contention
that the IJ did not consider all the facts presented is belied by the record.
To the extent Albiola Espinosa is making a due process claim, it therefore
fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due
process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-72495 2

-- 2 of 2 --