PEDRO BAUTISTA-VASQUEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-72769 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 18 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO BAUTISTA-VASQUEZ, AKA Pedro Bautista, AKA Pedro Bautistavasquez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-72769 Agency No. A200-865-208 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Pedro Bautista-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance. Our * 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). jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Bautista-Vasquez’s request for a continuance where he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded); Carrillo-Gonzalez v. INS, 353 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2003) (statements by counsel are not evidence); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge). To the extent Bautista-Vasquez challenges the BIA’s 2015 order dismissing his appeal from the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider those contentions because this petition for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”); Singh v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2016) (a BIA order denying an alien relief from removal but remanding the case to an IJ for voluntary departure proceedings is a final order of removal from which a timely petition for judicial review must be filed). 2 16-72769 We do not consider the extra-record information discussed in BautistaVasquez’s opening brief because the court’s review is normally limited to the administrative record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (judicial review is limited to the administrative record); Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record evidence). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 16-72769
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.
