Haro-Aguilar v. Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER RAFAEL HARO-AGUILAR, No. 22-591

Agency No. A202-055-927 Petitioner, v.

MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Javier Rafael Haro-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance and denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Haro-Aguilar’s motion for a continuance where he failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; see also Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors to consider in good cause analysis); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no abuse of discretion in denying continuance where relief was not then immediately available). Haro-Aguilar’s contentions that the agency applied an incorrect standard, failed to sufficiently explain its decision, and failed to consider evidence lack merit. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error and substantial prejudice are required to prevail on a due process claim).

We decline to reach Haro-Aguilar’s challenges to the agency’s determination that he failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship that were raised for the first time in his reply brief. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2020) (issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 22-591