Miguel Angel Zamundio Orozco v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANGEL ZAMUNDIO OROZCO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72556
Agency No. A034-983-427
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Zamundio Orozco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying a continuance and ordering
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
* 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
APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72556
discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance, and review de novo questions of
law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency correctly determined that Zamundio Orozco’s conviction under
California Health and Safety Code § 11378, for possession for sale of
methamphetamine, is a drug trafficking aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(43)(B), where the criminal complaint, change of plea form, and change of
plea minutes, read in conjunction, establishes that the substance at issue was
methamphetamine. See United States v. Vega Ortiz, 822 F.3d 1031, 1035-36 (9th
Cir. 2016) (Section 11378 is divisible and a conviction under the statute is an
aggravated felony where the substance at issue is punishable under the federal
Controlled Substances Act).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Zamundio Orozco a
fourth continuance for lack of good cause, where petitioner had no pending state
court motions, he advised the IJ that he was voluntarily abandoning his
applications for relief, and he requested that the IJ enter an order of removal. See 8
C.F.R. §§ 1003.29, 1003.31(c); Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to
consider in determining if the agency abused its discretion in denying a
continuance request).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Zamundio Orozco’s unexhausted

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72556
contentions regarding alleged due process violations by the IJ and the Department
of Homeland Security. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIED DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --