MARCO CELIS-BRICENO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72273 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 2 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCO CELIS-BRICENO, AKA Marco Antonio Celis-Briceno, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72273 Agency No. A072-111-212 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 24, 2016** Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Marco Celis-Briceno, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the question of whether an IJ’s denial of a continuance violated a petitioner’s statutory right to counsel, Montes-Lopez v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 2012), and we grant the petition for review and remand. Celis-Briceno argues his statutory right to counsel, which he never waived, was violated when the IJ denied his request for a continuance. We conclude, on the facts of this case, the IJ erred in denying Celis-Briceno’s request for a continuance. See Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting what constitutes reasonable time to locate counsel is a fact-specific inquiry and discussing relevant factors); id. at 1100 (“[A]t a minimum [IJs] must inquire whether the petitioner wishes counsel, determine a reasonable period for obtaining counsel, and assess whether any waiver of counsel is knowing and voluntary.”). Thus, we grant Celis-Briceno’s petition for review, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. In light of our remand, we do not reach Celis-Briceno’s remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 14-72273
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.
