Melanie Abanico v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Melanie Abanico v. Eric H. Holder Jr.

388 F. App'x 602

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 19, 2010

Docket08-71388

StatusUnpublished

This text of 388 F. App'x 602 (Melanie Abanico v. Eric H. Holder Jr.) 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

Melanie Abanico v. Eric H. Holder Jr., 388 F. App'x 602 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Melanie Abanico, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review *603 of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and review questions of law de novo, Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ properly denied Abanico’s adjustment of status application for failure to demonstrate admissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182. See Kyung Park v. Holder, 572 F.3d 619, 622-23 (9th Cir.2009) (to avoid being considered a public charge, § 1182(a)(4) requires that the alien submit an affidavit of support as described in 8 U.S.C. § 1183a).

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance where Abanico did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Abani-co’s contention that the IJ abused his discretion in denying Abanieo’s voluntary departure request because she failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the BIA).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Abani-co’s eligibility for cancellation of removal because she did not raise this claim with the BIA. See Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.1999) (court lacks jurisdiction over eligibility claim not raised before the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Melanie Abanico, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review *603 of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and review questions of law de novo, Aguilar Gonzalez v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ properly denied Abanico’s adjustment of status application for failure to demonstrate admissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182. See Kyung Park v. Holder, 572 F.3d 619, 622-23 (9th Cir.2009) (to avoid being considered a public charge, § 1182(a)(4) requires that the alien submit an affidavit of support as described in 8 U.S.C. § 1183a).

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance where Abanico did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Abani-co’s contention that the IJ abused his discretion in denying Abanieo’s voluntary departure request because she failed to exhaust this contention before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims before the BIA).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Abani-co’s eligibility for cancellation of removal because she did not raise this claim with the BIA. See Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.1999) (court lacks jurisdiction over eligibility claim not raised before the BIA).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 F. App'x 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melanie-abanico-v-eric-h-holder-jr-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack