Jesus Dy v. Loretta E. Lynch

669 F. App'x 451
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 4, 2016
Docket15-70956
StatusUnpublished

This text of 669 F. App'x 451 (Jesus Dy v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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.

Bluebook
Jesus Dy v. Loretta E. Lynch, 669 F. App'x 451 (9th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jesus Dultra Dy, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Dy’s request for a further continuance for failure to demonstrate good cause, where his first visa petition had been denied and he did not show a likelihood of success on his second visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (outlining factors for the reviewing court to consider when reviewing the agency’s denial of a continuance); Malilia v. Holder, 632 F.3d 598, 606 (9th Cir. 2011) (listing factors the agency should consider in determining whether to continue proceedings for adjudication of a pending visa petition).

*452 Dy’s contention that the agency did not apply the correct standard or consider the relevant factors in denying the continuance is not supported by the record. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the agency applies the correct legal standard where it expressly cites and applies relevant case law in rendering its decision); Malilla, 632 F.3d at 606 (applying factors set forth in Matter of Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785 (BIA 2009)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

Malilia v. Holder
632 F.3d 598 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Ahmed v. Holder
569 F.3d 1009 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey
552 F.3d 975 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
HASHMI
24 I. & N. Dec. 785 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
669 F. App'x 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesus-dy-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.