Alvaro-Sotomayor v. Holder
This text of 362 F. App'x 757 (Alvaro-Sotomayor v. Holder) 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
MEMORANDUM **
Santiago Alvaro-Sotomayor, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review *758 of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA reviewed the IJ’s decision for abuse of discretion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. See de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 393 (9th Cir.1997). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mulcasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying a second continuance to allow Alvaro-Sotomayor to seek post-conviction relief. See Grageda v. INS, 12 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1993); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247. Alvaro-Sotomayor’s contentions that the IJ failed to employ the correct legal standard and failed to specify an adequate reason for denying the continuance are not supported by the record.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Alvaro-Sotomayor’s due process contention because he failed to exhaust it 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
362 F. App'x 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvaro-sotomayor-v-holder-ca9-2010.