Opinion
No. 16-72736
10-29-2018
AARON SANCHEZ-CAZARES, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A200-806-501 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Aaron Sanchez-Cazares, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, and we review for abuse of discretion the agency's denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in denying cancellation of removal, where Sanchez-Cazares admitted that he was convicted of a controlled substance violation. See Guerrero-Roque v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 940, 941 (9th Cir. 2017) (conviction for an offense listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) renders the applicant ineligible for cancellation of removal); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (listing offenses related to controlled substance violations).
As Sanchez-Cazares has not applied for asylum or withholding of removal, the agency did not err in declining to consider whether his crime was particularly serious. S ee Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to reach non-dispositive issues).
The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying for lack of good cause Sanchez-Cazares's motion for a continuance, where he was ineligible for the relief he sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 2008) (no good cause for continuance where relief from removal was not available); Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process claims require showing that proceedings were "so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case" (internal citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.