VENANCIO CORTEZ, AKA Venancio Cortes-Cortes v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VENANCIO CORTEZ, AKA Venancio
Cortes-Cortes,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71042
Agency No. A205-147-507
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Venancio Cortez, 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”) removal order denying his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction
is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
FILED
JUN 20 2016
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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

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 did not abuse its discretion or violate Cortez’s due process right
to counsel in denying Cortez’s request for a second continuance for failure to show
good cause, or in granting the motion to withdraw, where he had more than a year
to find representation after his prior counsel withdrew. See Ahmed, 569 F.3d at
1012; Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1094, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing factors
to be considered when deciding what constitutes a reasonable time to obtain
counsel); see also Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463, 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (failure
to obtain counsel after two continuances over four months simply meant alien was
“unable to secure counsel at his own expense”).
Cortez’s contention that the IJ did not properly question him about a
possible asylum claim is unavailing, where he never expressed a fear of
persecution to the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(c)(1) (requiring an IJ to provide
information about applying for asylum if an alien expresses a fear of persecution or
harm upon being removed).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Cortez’s unexhausted contention that he
was never advised of the requirements for voluntary departure.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
15-71042 2

-- 2 of 2 --