Pedro Munoz Bonilla v. Jefferson Sessions
This text of Pedro Munoz Bonilla v. Jefferson Sessions (Pedro Munoz Bonilla v. Jefferson Sessions) 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.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO ENRIQUE MUNOZ BONILLA, No. 13-74045
Petitioner, Agency No. A092-523-275
v. MEMORANDUM * JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Enrique Munoz Bonilla, 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 motion 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). agency’s denial of a continuance, and we review de novo due process claims.
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 or violate due process in denying
Munoz Bonilla’s motion for a third continuance, where he failed to file any
applications for relief from removal after the IJ had warned him of the
consequences of such failure, and he failed to establish good cause. See 8 C.F.R. §
1003.31(c); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247; Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process
claim).
The record does not support Munoz Bonilla’s contention that the agency
failed to consider contentions or provide sufficient reasoning. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-74045
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Pedro Munoz Bonilla v. Jefferson Sessions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pedro-munoz-bonilla-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.