MARIO LUA QUINTERO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-73539 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAY 20 2013 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIO LUA QUINTERO, Petitioner, No. 11-73539 Agency No. A087-284-976 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 14, 2013** Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Mario Lua Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from a decision of an immigration judge ( IJ ) denying his motion to continue his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). discretion the agency s denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), we deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Lua Quintero s motion to continue to wait for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ( DHS ) to adjudicate his request for prosecutorial discretion, because he failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance. 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)). Lua Quintero had already received one prior continuance for this purpose, he had conceded the charge of inadmissibility and his ineligibility for all relief from removal except voluntary departure, DHS opposed an additional continuance, and the basis for the motion remained a mere speculative possibility at the time of his hearing. See id. ( [T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on . . . speculations. ); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (rejecting an abuse-of-discretion challenge to an IJ s refusal to continue removal proceedings where no relief was then immediately available ). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 11-73539

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.