Jimenez-Guzman v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1294

Jimenez-Guzman, a Mexican citizen, was admitted as a lawful permanent resident in 2000 and faced removal based on a 2002 Colorado heroin-related conviction.
DHS issued a notice to appear alleging removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for a state offense relating to a controlled substance.
The IJ granted multiple continuances to permit post-conviction and collateral proceedings, including attempts to withdraw the guilty plea and potential Padilla-based appeals.
The state court denied the motion to withdraw the plea, and the IJ and later the BIA denied further continuances and dismissed the appeal.
The BIA concluded the conviction record clearly established removability; Jimenez-Guzman conceded removability and the underlying offense.
Jimenez-Guzman petitioned for review challenging the continuance denial and the sufficiency of the conviction evidence; the court retained jurisdiction to review the continuance denial and ultimately denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the continuance denial	Jimenez-Guzman contends there is jurisdictional deficiency for continuance denial.	Government asserts jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 for regulation-based discretion.	Court has jurisdiction; review for abuse of discretion.
Whether the continuance denial was an abuse of discretion	Continued removal proceedings were warranted to pursue state post-conviction relief and Padilla-based appeal.	Continued proceedings were unwarranted given prior continuances and lack of good cause.	No abuse of discretion; denial rational and supported by record.
Whether the government proved removability by clear, unequivocal evidence	Record ambiguities could undermine clear proof of the exact offense; removal not clearly established.	Conviction record, read in its entirety, shows a heroin-related controlled-substance offense relating to a federally controlled substance.	Government met its burden; removability proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Whether the conviction record sufficiently identifies the offense for removability	Discrepancies between state conviction documents and the notice to appear create ambiguity.	All alternatives in the record lead to removability; exact labeling is not required if the record supports the federal substance.	Record supports removability; no error in BIA's determination.

Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 990 (10th Cir. 2004) (jurisdictional reach over discretionary IJ decisions)
Kucana v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 827 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (regulation-based continuance review is permitted)
Vahora v. Holder, 626 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2010) (IJ continuance decisions reviewable when based on regulation)
Kwak v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1140 (6th Cir. 2010) (continuance denials reviewable under regulatory authority)
Thimran v. Holder, 599 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2010) (continuance denial reviewable where based on regulation)
Juarez v. Holder, 599 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2010) (Kucana foreclosed § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) preclusion on continuance review)
Paredes v. Att'y Gen., 528 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2008) (finality of conviction for immigration purposes after collateral review)
Razkane v. Holder, 562 F.3d 1283 (10th Cir. 2009) (scope of review for BIA findings of fact)
United States v. Adame-Orozco, 607 F.3d 647 (10th Cir. 2010) (conviction finality does not preclude review of deportation order)
Ruiz-Vidal v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (evidence must show removability under federal schedules)