NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 27 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO DANIEL RIVAS, No. 16-72648 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-720-703 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. 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). 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 16-72648 16-72648 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Francisco Rivas v. Jefferson Sessions 27 October 2017 Agency Unpublished 01d37dffceb426aef76439d077fa81334f84e720
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals