Rosendo A. Villatoro-Alvarez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSENDO A. VILLATORO-ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71209
Agency No. A095-065-299
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Rosendo A. Villatoro-Alvarez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding Villatoro-Alvarez abandoned his
applications for relief and denying a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
SEP 28 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and
the decision to deem an application abandoned. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886,
889 (9th Cir. 2013). We review de novo due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v.
Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Villatoro-Alvarez’s
request for a fifth continuance where he failed to demonstrate good cause. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.29; Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247. Nor did the agency err in
deeming Villatoro-Alvarez’s applications for relief abandoned, where he did not
file any application for relief by the deadline the IJ imposed. Taggar, 736 F.3d at
890 (“If an application or document is not filed within the time set by the
Immigration Judge, the opportunity to file that application or document shall be
deemed waived.” (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c))). Villatoro-Alvarez’s claim that
the denial of an additional continuance violated due process therefore fails. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process
challenge, alien must show error and prejudice).
We reject Villatoro-Alvarez’s contention that the agency’s decision was
insufficient, where the BIA invoked the applicable “good cause” legal standard and
cited pertinent legal authorities. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975,
980 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that “the IJ applied the correct legal standard” in a
14-71209 2

-- 2 of 3 --

case where “the IJ expressly cited and applied [relevant case law] in rendering its
decision, which is all our review requires”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-71209 3

-- 3 of 3 --