ROLANDO CHIQUETE-VERDUGO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72136 (9th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED DEC 15 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROLANDO CHIQUETE-VERDUGO, AKA Rolando Verdugo, DBA Rolando Chiquete Verdugo, No. 13-72136 Agency No. A205-316-189 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Rolando Chiquete-Verdugo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, and review de novo claims of due process violations. SandovalLuna 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 Chiquete-Verdugo’s request for a further continuance for failure to demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the denial). Furthermore, the denial of Chiquete-Verdugo’s request for a continuance did not violate his due process rights, where he has not provided sufficient evidence of eligibility for relief that would demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). Chiquete-Verdugo’s claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing also fails. See id. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-72136

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.