LUIS ALVARENGA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-70852 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS ANTONIO ALVARENGA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-70852 Agency No. A075-603-719 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Luis Antonio Alvarenga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review * 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). de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate Alvarenga’s right to counsel in denying his request for a further continuance, where the IJ granted him nine months to seek counsel once he was released from detention, and the IJ warned him that no further time would be granted to prepare his applications for relief, with or without counsel. See id. at 1012 (listing factors to consider in reviewing the agency’s denial of a continuance); Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding it was not unreasonable to deny a continuance where petitioner had six months to pursue post-conviction relief). Alvarenga’s contention that he did not explicitly waive his right to counsel at his final hearing is unavailing, where he was represented by counsel at that hearing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-70852

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.