Uriel Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14469
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Garcia is a Mexican national who entered the U.S. as a child and may have had some initial status.
- In 2010 Garcia was convicted in California of possessing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia; he entered a drug diversion program, but did not complete treatment.
- He was placed in immigration proceedings in January 2011 based on a Notice to Appear alleging removability for the 2010 conviction that related to a controlled substance.
- Garcia sought asylum, withholding, or adjustment of status at multiple IJ hearings while without counsel; the IJ granted continuances to allow him to obtain counsel.
- The IJ denied Garcia a fourth continuance to pursue postconviction relief; the BIA affirmed, and Garcia sought review arguing the denial of the continuance was error.
- The question presented is whether § 1252(a)(2)(C) prevents review of the denial of a continuance and whether the denial was an abuse of discretion; the court ultimately holds § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not bar such review and the denial was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1252(a)(2)(C) bars review of the denial of a continuance | Garcia argues bar applies to all continuances | Government argues bar extends to all orders predicated on conviction | No; bar does not apply to procedural continuance denial |
| Whether the IJ abused discretion in denying a further continuance | Garcia needed more time to pursue postconviction relief | IJ properly weighed factors and previous continuances | No abuse of discretion; denial within bounds given history and prior continuances |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 2008) (continuance denial not within §1252(a)(2)(B) bar)
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (S. Ct. 2010) (clarified discretionary authority in §1252(a)(2)(B))
- Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2005) (bar focuses on orders predicated on crime, not all petitions)
- Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245 (9th Cir. 2003) (limits of §1252(a)(2)(C) scope)
- Pechenkov v. Holder, 705 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 2012) (review of denial on merits, not conviction basis)
- Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2008) (jurisdiction over procedural relief where not predicated on crime)
- Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007) (review of denial consistent with non-crime-based grounds)
- Calma v. Holder, 663 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2011) (procedural steps may lie within jurisdiction)
- Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2014) (divisible state conviction supports federal matching under §1252(a)(2)(C))