Marco Josue Prado-Acosta v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCO JOSUE PRADO-ACOSTA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
Nos. 15-72364
16-70145
Agency No. A200-822-834
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Marco Josue Prado-Acosta, a
native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
denial of a continuance, and denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction
* 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).
FILED
NOV 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-72364
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
for a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petitions for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Prado-Acosta’s request
for an additional continuance for lack of good cause, where he did not file an
asylum application prior to the IJ’s deadline and therefore waived his opportunity
to do so. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1003.31(c); Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing
factors to consider). It follows that Prado-Acosta’s related due process claim fails
for lack of error. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Prado-Acosta’s motion to reopen, where he failed to comply with the procedural
requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and any
alleged ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. See Tamang v.
Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (failure to satisfy Matter of
Lozada requirements was fatal to ineffective assistance of counsel claim where
ineffectiveness was not plain on the face of the record).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --