OMAR RODRIGUEZ-BAHENA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, III, No. 17-70327 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OMAR RODRIGUEZ-BAHENA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-70327 Agency No. A087-594-893 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Omar Rodriguez-Bahena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order denying a motion to continue proceedings. 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). denial of a continuance and review 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 due process in denying a continuance for failure to show good cause, where Rodriguez-Bahena had not shown he had yet filed a motion in state court to vacate his convictions and where he could still seek deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security with removal proceedings pending or with a final removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (factors to consider when reviewing the denial of a continuance include the nature of the evidence excluded and reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct); Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process claims require showing that proceedings were “so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his case” (internal citation omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-70327

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.