Jaime Mauricio Hernandez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME MAURICIO HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-526
Agency No
A087-746-222
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 7, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACE, W. FLETCHER, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Mauricio Hernandez (Mauricio), a native and citizen of Mexico, timely
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his
appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for voluntary
* 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 9 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
departure and cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. “An IJ’s decision not to continue a hearing is reviewed for abuse of
discretion, but whether an IJ’s denial of a continuance violated a petitioner’s
statutory right to counsel is a question of law which we review de novo.” Orozco-
Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal citations, quotation
marks, and alterations omitted). We deny the petition.
Mauricio was not denied due process by the IJ’s decision to adjudicate his
case despite his lack of counsel. When the IJ granted his counsel’s unopposed
motion to withdraw after the removability phase, the IJ properly informed Mauricio
of his right to representation and the availability of pro bono legal services, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1240.10(a)(1), (2), and provided instructions for presenting his relief case without
counsel. Although Mauricio did not affirmatively waive his right to counsel,
Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004), the nine-month period
between merits hearings was a “reasonable time to locate counsel and permit counsel
to prepare for the hearing.” Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2019). Nor
did Mauricio face any of the barriers frustrating access to counsel recognized by this
court. Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th Cir. 2005).
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --