Ivan Camacho v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IVAN CAMACHO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72830
Agency No. A200-973-498
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Ivan Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s removal order denying a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and
* 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
MAY 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-72830
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 err or abuse its discretion in denying Camacho a further
continuance, where success on post-conviction relief was speculative at the time of
his final hearing, and he did not present evidence to the agency that such relief was
eventually successful. 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 success of post-conviction relief was
speculative).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Camacho’s unexhausted contentions
regarding his conviction modification and resentencing in state court. 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.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --