From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lozano-Leon v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 17, 2012
486 F. App'x 653 (9th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 06-73527 No. 06-74977 Agency No. A098-568-157

10-17-2012

JOSE MANUEL LOZANO-LEON, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

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


On Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Jose Manuel Lozano-Leon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his request for a continuance and denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009), and the denial of a motion to reconsider, Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We review de novo claims of due process violations. Id. We deny the petitions for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Lozano-Leon's request for a continuance. See Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (continuance may be granted for good cause).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lozano-Leon's motion to reconsider on the ground that the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Lozano-Leon v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 17, 2012
486 F. App'x 653 (9th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

Lozano-Leon v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:JOSE MANUEL LOZANO-LEON, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 17, 2012

Citations

486 F. App'x 653 (9th Cir. 2012)