ISMAEL JIMENEZ-MUNIZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 15-71081 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 4 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISMAEL JIMENEZ-MUNIZ, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71081 Agency No. A200-827-328 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 27, 2016** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Ismael Jimenez-Muniz, 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 removal order denying his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the * 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). denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. 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 or violate due process in denying Jimenez-Muniz’s request for a continuance to await the outcome of the appeal of his conviction, where success on the appeal was speculative and Jimenez-Muniz conceded to the BIA his appeal had been denied. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (outlining factors to consider when reviewing the agency’s denial of a continuance); Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Jimenez-Muniz’s contention that the agency erred in declining to administratively close his proceedings. Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-71081

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.