Felicisima Espinosa v. Loretta E. Lynch

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 4, 2015
• Docket: 11-72495
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELICISIMA ALBIOLA ESPINOSA, No. 11-72495

Petitioner, Agency No. A088-224-046

v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

* 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). 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.

2 11-72495