JAIME MEZA-RIVAS V. LORETTA LYNCH, No. 15-71882 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAIME FABIAN MEZA-RIVAS, AKA Jaime Mezarivais, AKA Jaime Fabian Mezarivas, AKA Jaime F. Mezrevias, No. 15-71882 Agency No. A205-297-149 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Jaime Fabian Meza-Rivas, 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”) order denying a continuance and entering an order of * 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). removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by denying Meza-Rivas’ motion for a continuance for lack of good cause, where Meza-Rivas had the opportunity to research and incorporate recent developments regarding social group claims, and future changes in the law remained speculative. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause); Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (considering the nature of the evidence excluded and the reasonableness of petitioner’s conduct); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on . . . speculations.”); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). Meza-Rivas’ motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 20) and supplemental motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 22) are denied as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-71882

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.