Mario Miranda Castro v. William Barr

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO MIRANDA CASTRO, AKA Luis No. 19-72279 Hernandez Miranda, Agency No. A092-724-394

Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Mario Miranda Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

*

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).

denial of a motion to continue and review de novo claims of due process violations. 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 by denying Miranda Castro’s motion for a continuance to seek post-conviction relief for failure to show good cause, where post-conviction relief remained speculative at the time of his final hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on . . . speculations.”).

Miranda Castro’s due process claim fails, where he has not established prejudice. See Gomez-Velazco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 19-72279