From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Espinosa v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 4, 2015
611 F. App'x 458 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 11-72495

08-04-2015

FELICISIMA ALBIOLA ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A088-224-046 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

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

Felicisima Albiola Espinosa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, and 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 in denying a continuance, where Albiola Espinosa had already been given three continuances and she did not show good cause for an additional continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown). Albiola Espinosa's contention that the IJ did not consider all the facts presented is belied by the record.

To the extent Albiola Espinosa is making a due process claim, it therefore fails. See 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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Espinosa v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 4, 2015
611 F. App'x 458 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Espinosa v. Lynch

Case Details

Full title:FELICISIMA ALBIOLA ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 4, 2015

Citations

611 F. App'x 458 (9th Cir. 2015)