NELSON CALIS V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-70926 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NELSON CALIS, AKA Luciano Carlis, AKA Nelson Carlis, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70926 Agency No. A092-810-626 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Nelson Calis, a native and citizen of Belize, 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a * 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). continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Calis’s motion to continue, where he had been granted nine previous continuances, he repeatedly failed to cooperate or communicate with his counsel resulting in counsel’s repeated withdrawal and delays in his case, the IJ advised him of his obligation to file an application for relief and supporting documentation or risk being ordered removed, and he failed to submit an application for relief despite having had years to do so. See Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider when reviewing the agency’s denial of a continuance); cf. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1294-95 (9th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion in denying continuance where IJ failed to warn Cui that failure to resubmit fingerprints in advance to merits hearing could result in pretermission of her claim, previous delays were not due to Cui’s conduct, and Cui was otherwise diligent). Calis’s contention that the agency did not show proper consideration of all factors is not supported. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 18-70926
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.
