PEDRO MUNOZ BONILLA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 13-74045 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 19 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO ENRIQUE MUNOZ BONILLA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-74045 Agency No. A092-523-275 v. MEMORANDUM * JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Pedro Enrique Munoz Bonilla, 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. We have jurisdiction under 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 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). agency’s denial of a continuance, and we review de novo due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Munoz Bonilla’s motion for a third continuance, where he failed to file any applications for relief from removal after the IJ had warned him of the consequences of such failure, and he failed to establish good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247; Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). The record does not support Munoz Bonilla’s contention that the agency failed to consider contentions or provide sufficient reasoning. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 13-74045

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.