Jose Osorio-Renteria v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 29, 2026
• Docket: 20-71265
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE OSORIO-RENTERIA, No. 20-71265 Agency No. Petitioner, A201-275-264 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 27, 2026** San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, FRIEDLAND, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Jose Osorio-Renteria seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA) dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his request

for a continuance of a hearing on his applications for withholding of removal and

Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8

* 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). U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

We review the denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. Ahmed v.

Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). There are no “bright-line rules” for

deciding whether a denial of a continuance is an abuse of discretion. Baires v. INS,

856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir. 1988). Rather, the issue “must be resolved on a case by

case basis.” Id. In assessing the denial of a motion for a continuance, we consider

several factors, including: “(1) the importance of the evidence, (2) the

unreasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct, (3) the inconvenience to the court,

and (4) the number of continuances previously granted.” Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d

1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012. The agency need

not “expressly address” all of the factors so long as it “sufficiently outline[s] why

good cause did not exist.” Hui Ran Mu v. Barr, 936 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2019);

see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.

Here, the agency sufficiently outlined its reasons for denying the

continuance and did not abuse its discretion. As the agency reasoned, Osorio-

Renteria was appropriately advised of the deadline for filing his documents and

was provided more than a year to gather his evidence and prepare to present his

claim. Counsel for Osorio-Renteria represented that she was ready to proceed with

the hearing, and although Osorio-Renteria argues that additional attorney

preparation time could have improved his testimony, the agency is “not required to

2 20-71265 grant a continuance based on these speculations.” Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264,

1274 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the “decision to grant or deny the continuance is

within the sound discretion of the [agency],” we will not overturn its decision here

where there is no “showing of clear abuse.” Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (internal

quotation marks omitted).

DENIED.

3 20-71265