MAEDA-GARCIA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 07-75039 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 20, 2015.

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROMILO MAEDA-GARCIA; WILFREDO MAEDA; MORIS RUBILIO MAEDA-MAEDA; BRENDA ANALU MAEDA-MAEDA, Petitioners, No. 07-75039 Agency Nos.A077-381-966 A076-865-591 A076-865-592 A076-865-593 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued August 4, 2011 Submitted September 15, 2015 Seattle, Washington Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, District Judge.** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. This matter was referred to mediation. Only Romilo Maeda-Garcia and Wilfredo Maeda remain as petitioners, and Wilfredo’s claims are derivative of Romilo, his father. The petitions have been referred back to us. We appointed counsel to represent Petitioners and this court appreciates the work of the students at the University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law. The government has filed a motion to dismiss and Petitioners’ counsel has filed an opposition. The motion is denied. On the merits, the only claim is that the Immigration Judge should have granted a continuance of the original hearing. Romilo’s children have claimed on his behalf that his failure to appear at the hearing was excused by his having been granted advance parole by the government to visit his dying father in Guatemala. No evidence has ever been produced to support that claim and current counsel are not able to communicate with him. In the absence of any evidence of a justification for such continuance, there was no abuse of discretion in its denial. See Ahmed v Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). The petitions are DENIED. 2

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.