Rigoberto Santiz Gomez v. William Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 24, 2019
• Docket: 18-70975
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RIGOBERTO SANTIZ GOMEZ, AKA No. 18-70975 Gerardo Luis Francisco Diego, Agency No. A095-793-679 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 17, 2019**

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Rigoberto Santiz Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 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 continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.

2008). We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations

in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014).

We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Santiz Gomez’s motion

for a continuance where he failed to show good cause. See Sandoval-Luna, 526

F.3d at 1247 (“[t]he decision to grant or deny a continuance is in the sound

discretion of the judge and will not be overturned except on a showing of clear

abuse” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Santiz

Gomez’s contention, Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018) does

not affect the analysis of the motion to continue in his case. See id. at 405-06. We

therefore decline to remand for consideration of Matter of L-A-B-R-.

We also reject Santiz Gomez’s contentions that the IJ violated his due

process rights by not explaining the availability of asylum and related relief or pre-

conclusion voluntary departure. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.

2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of

voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d

2 18-70975 1174, 1176-77 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court’s jurisdiction over challenges to the denial

of voluntary departure is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 18-70975