Gregoria Valladares-Gomez, Jorge Miranda-Valladares v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORIA VALLADARES-GOMEZ,
JORGE MIRANDA-VALLADARES, and
ROSA ISABEL GONZALEZ-
VALLADARES,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72683
Agency Nos. A202-000-428
A206-807-864
A202-000-427
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Gregoria Valladares-Gomez and her family, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
* 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
FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72683
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”), and requests for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations
in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.
2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d
1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
We deny petitioners’ motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No.
24). See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s
review is limited to the administrative record).
The IJ did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
petitioners’ requests for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Padilla-Martinez
v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a
petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.” (citations
omitted)).
Apart from their arguments related to the denial of a continuance, petitioners
do not raise any challenge to the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72683
(9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief
are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to these claims.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ challenges to the BIA’s
October 5, 2015, order denying their motion to reconsider and motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance of counsel, because petitioners did not file a timely
petition for review as to that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995)
(deadline for filing a petition for review from a final order of removal is
“mandatory and jurisdictional”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --