Case Information
*1 Before: TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MOSMAN, District Judge. [**]
Jose Catalino Quinteros Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decisions of the Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and *2 protection under the Convention Against Torture for failure to establish identity and to prosecute his claims in a timely fashion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.
When “the BIA adopts and affirms the IJ’s decision with a citation to
Burbano
, and does not disagree with any part of the IJ’s decision, we review the
IJ’s decision as if it were the decision of the BIA.”
Cruz Rendon v. Holder
, 603
F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing
Ahmed v. Holder
,
The IJ did not abuse his discretion by pretermitting Quinteros’s applications
for relief, and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming that pretermission.
“The Attorney General may require applicants to submit fingerprints . . . at such
time and in such manner to be determined by regulation by the Attorney General.”
8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(1). “Failure to . . . comply with the requirements to provide
biometrics . . . within the time allowed by the immigration judge’s order,
constitutes abandonment of the application [for relief] and the immigration judge
may enter an appropriate order dismissing the application unless the applicant
demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause.” 8 C.F.R. §
*3
1003.47(c);
see also
8 C.F.R. § 1208.10 (“Failure to comply with processing
requirements for biometrics . . . within the time allowed will result in dismissal of
the application, unless the applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of
good cause.”). At Quinteros’s January 22, 2004 hearing, the IJ acknowledged that
Quinteros had complied with the fingerprinting requirement, but instructed him to
update them due to their fifteen-month expiration date before the continued hearing
on April 4, 2005. Quinteros’s statement to the IJ on April 4, 2005 that he was
waiting for a form from the government to obtain fingerprints for a work permit
did not by itself demonstrate good cause for failure to comply. Unlike the
petitioners in
Cui v. Mukasey
,
Because both the statute and regulation are discretionary, we cannot say the
IJ abused his discretion in pretermitting Quinteros’s case. Therefore, Quinteros
cannot establish a violation of due process.
See Lata v. INS
,
Contrary to Quinteros’s argument, the IJ did not find that Quinteros’s
criminal convictions barred relief. Instead, the IJ relied on his criminal history to
deny voluntary departure only, and the BIA agreed. Even had Quinteros appealed
this determination, we lack jurisdiction over discretionary determinations to deny
voluntary departure.
See Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder
,
The petition is DENIED.
Notes
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[**] The Honorable Michael W. Mosman, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.