JOSE VASQUEZ BARAJAS V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 18-72052 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 13 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ALBERTO VASQUEZ BARAJAS, AKA Jose Albert Vasquez, AKA Jose Alberto Vasquez, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-72052 Agency No. A092-383-135 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jose Alberto Vasquez Barajas, 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 decision denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, * 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). Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in concluding that Vasquez Barajas failed to show good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). Vasquez Barajas’s due process claim fails because he has not established prejudice from the denial of the continuance. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 18-72052

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.