MOHAMED LAHMAR V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 18-70990 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 17 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOHAMED LAHMAR, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-70990 Agency No. A206-548-342 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 15, 2019** Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Mohamed Lahmar, a native and citizen of Tunisia, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause Lahmar’s motion for a continuance to await the BIA’s decision on his appeal of the revocation of his visa petition. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n IJ ‘may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.’” (citation omitted)). Lahmar’s evidence did not support his contention that the agency would change its decision, and the basis for the motion remained merely a speculative possibility at the time of his final removal hearing. See id. (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on . . . speculations.”). Contrary to Lahmar’s contention, we lack jurisdiction to consider his challenges to the revocation of his visa petition by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. See Elbez v. INS, 767 F.2d 1313, 1314 (9th Cir. 1985) (visa petition decisions are collateral matters not within the scope of a removal proceeding, and therefore not reviewable by the court of appeals). We do not consider the documents that Lahmar submitted at Docket Entries No. 22 and No. 23, because they were not part of 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. 2 18-70990
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.
