Nunez-Espinoza v. Holder

356 F. App'x 935
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 14, 2009·No. No. 06-71035·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Domingo Nunez-E spinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance and his applications for a waiver under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c) and for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for continuance, Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 883 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004), and review de novo questions of law, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Nunez-Espinoza’s motion for a continuance because Nunez-E spinoza did not establish good cause for failing to provide his fingerprints as ordered, and the IJ warned him that failure to comply would result in the denial of his applications. See Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246-47 (9th Cir.2008); cf. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1293-95 (9th Cir.2008). It follows that Nunez-Espinoza’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to establish a due process violation).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Footnotes

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

Nunez-Espinoza v. Holder, 356 F. App'x 935 (9th Cir. 2009).

356 F. App'x 935 (Nunez-Espinoza v. Holder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey
526 F.3d 1243 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Qi Cui v. Mukasey
538 F.3d 1289 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)