Francisco Daniel Rivas v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO DANIEL RIVAS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72648
Agency No. A205-720-703
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Daniel Rivas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance.
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
OCT 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-72648
discretion the denial of a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243,
1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
The court lacks jurisdiction to consider Rivas’ contentions regarding the
merits of his claims because he did not raise them to the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review Rivas’ unexhausted ineffective assistance of
counsel claim. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000)
(an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must first be presented to the BIA).
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Rivas’ third request for a
continuance because he failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29;
Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (finding the agency did not abuse its discretion in
denying petitioner’s request for a continuance).
We do not consider the materials Rivas attached to his opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --