GABINO VEGA-JIMENEZ V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-70223 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 02 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABINO VEGA-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, No. 12-70223 Agency No. A073-915-578 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 24, 2013 ** Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Gabino Vega-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) decision denying his request for a continuance and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Vega-Jimenez s request for a continuance where he failed to show good cause. See id. at 1012. To the extent Vega-Jimenez challenges the agency s determination that he did not merit voluntary departure as a matter of discretion, we lack jurisdiction to review this determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 2011). We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA s determination that the evidence Vega-Jimenez submitted with his motion to remand would not alter the prior discretionary determination denying voluntary departure. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 600 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where the only question presented is whether [the] new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard. (internal quotations and brackets omitted)); see also Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2005) (A motion to reopen filed while 2 12-70223 an appeal is pending before the BIA is treated as a motion to remand to the IJ for further proceedings). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 12-70223
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
