Romilo Maeda-Garcia; Wilfredo Maeda; Moris Rubilio Maeda-Maeda; Brenda Analu Maeda-Maeda v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROMILO MAEDA-GARCIA;
WILFREDO MAEDA; MORIS RUBILIO
MAEDA-MAEDA; BRENDA ANALU
MAEDA-MAEDA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75039
Agency Nos.A077-381-966
A076-865-591
A076-865-592
A076-865-593
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued August 4, 2011 Submitted September 15, 2015
Seattle, Washington
Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, District
Judge.**
FILED
SEP 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

This matter was referred to mediation. Only Romilo Maeda-Garcia and
Wilfredo Maeda remain as petitioners, and Wilfredo’s claims are derivative of
Romilo, his father. The petitions have been referred back to us.
We appointed counsel to represent Petitioners and this court appreciates the
work of the students at the University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of
Law.
The government has filed a motion to dismiss and Petitioners’ counsel has
filed an opposition. The motion is denied.
On the merits, the only claim is that the Immigration Judge should have
granted a continuance of the original hearing. Romilo’s children have claimed on
his behalf that his failure to appear at the hearing was excused by his having been
granted advance parole by the government to visit his dying father in Guatemala.
No evidence has ever been produced to support that claim and current counsel are
not able to communicate with him. In the absence of any evidence of a
justification for such continuance, there was no abuse of discretion in its denial.
See Ahmed v Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).
The petitions are DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --