JOSE FUENTES V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-72588 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS FUENTES, AKA Jose Loius Fuentes, No. 13-72588 Agency No. A094-153-412 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Fuentes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to continue. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 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). denial of a motion to continue. Sandoval-Luna 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 concluding that Fuentes failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance, where Fuentes had been previously granted three continuances over 18 months, and he did not meet the IJ’s deadline for filing his applications for relief. See id. at 1247. We lack jurisdiction to review Fuentes’s unexhausted due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that due process claims, procedural in nature, must be exhausted); Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (“We . . . require an alien who argues ineffective assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 13-72588

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.