JORGE MAGANA-VILLALVAZO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-70580 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE MAGANA-VILLALVAZO, Petitioner, No. 15-70580 Agency No. A200-089-286 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Jorge Magana-Villalvazo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. * 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). 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 Magana-Villalvazo’s request for a continuance for failure to show good cause, where he did not show he would be statutorily eligible for the relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown); Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012. Magana-Villalvazo’s contention that the agency did not properly consider the factors in evaluating whether he had shown good cause for a continuance is not supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is merely that [the agency] consider[s] the issues raised, and announce[s] its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citations and quotation marks omitted)). To the extent Magana-Villalvazo contends the IJ erred in not addressing whether his voluntary return was lawful, he failed to exhaust this contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-70580
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.
