Aguirre Gonzalez v. Garland
This text of Aguirre Gonzalez v. Garland (Aguirre Gonzalez v. Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE RUBEN AGUIRRE GONZALEZ, No. 22-1633 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-536-223 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2024** Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Ruben Aguirre Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration
judge’s order of removal and denial of his motion for a continuance related to his
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). application for adjustment of status. We dismiss the petition.
Aguirre Gonzalez requested a continuance so that he could reconcile with
his wife, a U.S. citizen, and so that she might re-file an I-130 visa petition in
support of his application for adjustment of status. The immigration judge
determined that Aguirre Gonzalez did not demonstrate good cause under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29 and denied the continuance.
Except for constitutional claims and legal questions, we may not review
“any judgment regarding the granting of relief under [8 U.S.C.] § 1255 and the
other enumerated provisions”—including provisions governing cancellation of
removal and adjustment of status. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 338 (2022)
(emphasis omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). That jurisdictional bar extends to
procedural decisions, including an agency’s denial of a request for a continuance.
See Figueroa Ochoa v. Garland, 91 F.4th 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 2024). Here, the
agency’s ruling on Aguirre Gonzalez’s motion for a continuance was based on its
evaluation of Aguirre Gonzalez’s eligibility for adjustment of status. See Matter of
L-A-B-R-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 405, 413 (A.G. 2018) (“[T]he good-cause assessment
under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 . . . . must focus principally on two factors: (1) the
likelihood that the alien will receive the collateral relief, and (2) whether the relief
will materially affect the outcome of the removal proceedings.”). Accordingly, it
was a “judgment ‘regarding’ that ultimate decision” to adjust status. Patel, 596
2 22-1633 U.S. at 344. We therefore lack jurisdiction over Aguirre Gonzalez’s challenge to
the continuance’s denial. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
PETITION DISMISSED.
3 22-1633
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Aguirre Gonzalez v. Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aguirre-gonzalez-v-garland-ca9-2024.