LUIS ROCHA RIOS V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73788 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS ALBERTO ROCHA RIOS, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73788 Agency No. A205-053-380 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Luis Alberto Rocha Rios, 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 or administrative closure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * 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). review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. SandovalLuna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause Rocha Rios’s motion for an indefinite continuance to allow him to adjust his status once his approved relative visa petition became current, where he presented no evidence that relief was immediately available to him. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no good cause for continuance where relief from removal was not immediately available). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination regarding administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-73788

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.