Opinion
No. 13-74423
11-25-2015
MAGDALENA GARCIA DE AGUIRRE, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A095-654-818 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Magdalena Garcia de Aguirre, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance and review de novo constitutional 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 Garcia de Aguirre's due process rights by denying her an eighth continuance to request revalidation of her previously revoked I-130 petition, where Garcia de Aguirre had no qualifying relative currently willing and able to file the affidavit of support necessary to revalidate her petition, and the possibility that her future daughter-in-law might file the affidavit was speculative. See id., 526 F.3d at 1247 (no abuse of discretion in denying a motion for a continuance where the relief sought was not available to petitioner); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).
Contrary to Garcia de Aguirre's contention, the BIA provided sufficient reasoning and detail in its opinion. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) ("What is required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted." (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
Garcia de Aguirre's request for mediation is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED