SALVADOR SILVA LOZA, AKA Salvador SilvaLoza v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR SILVA LOZA, AKA Salvador
SilvaLoza,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71928
Agency No. A205-056-092
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Silva Loza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
* 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
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-71928
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the 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 did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Silva Loza’s request for a further continuance for failure to show good cause. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. Silva Loza conceded removability, post-conviction relief
remained speculative at the time of his final hearing, and petitioner could continue
to pursue post-conviction relief outside his immigration proceedings. See Singh v.
Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ not required to grant a continuance
based on speculation); Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015) (no
abuse of discretion to deny a continuance to seek post-conviction relief, where
petitioner had been in proceedings for six months and success of post-conviction
relief was speculative); 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.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Silva Loza’s unexhausted contention that
the IJ did not consider his claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel in his
criminal proceedings. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s
administrative proceedings before the BIA.”). Likewise, Silva Loza’s contention

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-71928
that the BIA failed to address his contentions is not supported by the record, where
he did not raise to the BIA his claims of ineffective assistance in his criminal
proceedings, and where he does not specify what other factors the BIA failed to
consider. See Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830.
Silva Loza has waived any challenge to the agency’s determination that he is
statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure due to his
controlled substance conviction. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by
argument are deemed abandoned.”).
To the extent Silva Loza requests a stay of removal, the request is denied as
moot. The currently effective temporary stay of removal will expire upon the
issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --