NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 12 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO HERNANDEZ OLIVOS, AKA Julio No. 19-72380 Hernandez, Agency No. A215-855-171 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney Gen- eral,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 10, 2022** Anchorage, Alaska

Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Julio Hernandez Olivos, a native of Mexico, seeks review of a decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of

a continuance and denying petitioner’s motion to remand. We review both decisions

* 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). for abuse of discretion. Orozco-Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021)

(continuance); Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013) (remand).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by affirming the IJ’s denial of a continu-

ance. Hernandez Olivos did not meet his burden of showing that his visa petition

was prima facie approvable under the “bona fide marriage” exemption, 8 C.F.R.

§§ 204.2(a)(l)(iii).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to remand based

on its determination that the new evidence would not constitute exceptional and ex-

tremely unusual hardship. See Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999

(9th Cir. 2021) (“This court does not have jurisdiction to review the merits of the

BIA’s discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal based on hardship.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2