ARTURO MENDEZ-LEMUS V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-70213 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 20 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARTURO MENDEZ-LEMUS, AKA Arturo Mendez, No. 14-70213 Agency No. A095-745-593 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Arturo Mendez-Lemus, 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 request for a continuance. 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 continuance. 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 in denying Mendez-Lemus’s request for a further continuance for failure to demonstrate good cause, where Mendez-Lemus had already been granted a continuance to await visa availability and his visa likely would not become current for at least a year and a half. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an immigration judge may grant a continuance for good cause shown); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no abuse of discretion by denying a continuance where the relief sought was not immediately available to petitioner). Nor does the record support Mendez-Lemus’s claim that the agency abused its discretion by failing to consider all of the factors or failed to set forth any reasoned basis for its decision. See Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2012) (“An IJ does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). Mendez-Lemus’s motion to remand or for inclusion in this court’s mediation program is denied as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-70213
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.
