JUAN GUTIERREZ-GALINDO V. DANA J. BOENTE, No. 15-72592 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 3 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN GUTIERREZ-GALINDO, AKA Juan Guiterrez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-72592 Agency No. A205-528-216 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* DANA BOENTE, Acting 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. Juan Gutierrez-Galindo, 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”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 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). agency’s denial of a continuance. 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 in denying for lack of good cause Gutierrez-Galindo’s motion for a continuance to request that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reconsider its prior denial of his request for prosecutorial discretion. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n IJ ‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’” (citation omitted)). Gutierrez-Galindo provided no evidence to support his contention that the agency would change its decision issued only two months prior, and the basis for the motion remained merely a speculative possibility at the time of his final removal hearing. See id. (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on . . . speculations.”). The record does not support Gutierrez-Galindo’s contention that the IJ failed to provide sufficient reasoning. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-72592

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.