Joel Anguiano Alvarado v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL ANGUIANO ALVARADO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1342
Agency No.
A077-067-149
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Joel Anguiano Alvarado (Anguiano Alvarado), a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of the dismissal of his appeal challenging the order by
an Immigration Judge (IJ) finding his application for cancellation of removal
* 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
NOV 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1342
abandoned. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition
for review.
We review the opinion of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), “except
to the extent that it expressly adopted portions of the IJ’s decision.” Velasquez-
Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).
The denial of a requested continuance is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
See Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 2023). “A due
process challenge in an immigration proceeding is reviewed de novo.” Id. at 1047
(citation omitted).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in agreeing with the IJ’s denial of
Anguiano Alvarado’s request for a third continuance. To determine if there was an
abuse of discretion, we consider “(1) the nature of the evidence excluded as a result
of the denial of the continuance, (2) the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct,
(3) the inconvenience to the court, and (4) the number of continuances previously
granted.” Id. at 1051 (citation omitted).
Anguiano Alvarado did not file an application for cancellation of removal by
the deadline set by the IJ. Even assuming that the first Arizmendi-Medina factor
favors Anguiano Alvarado, because the IJ deemed his application abandoned, see
id. at 1051, the remaining three factors weigh against Anguiano Alvarado. The IJ
granted two prior continuances and Anguiano Alvarado did not adequately explain

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1342
why he did not submit an application for relief or request an extension of the filing
deadline. Thus, it was not unreasonable for the IJ to deny Anguiano Alvarado a
third continuance, or for the BIA to dismiss Anguiano Alvarado’s appeal of the
IJ’s decision. See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011)
(concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying a second
continuance).
There was no due process violation because there was no abuse of discretion
in denying a third requested continuance. See Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246
(9th Cir. 2000) (“To prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings,
[the petitioner] must show error and substantial prejudice. . . .”) (citations
omitted).1
PETITION DENIED.
1The BIA did not err by declining to reinstate the voluntary departure period
because Anguiano Alvarado did not provide timely proof of posting bond. See 8
C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3)(ii).

-- 3 of 3 --