919 F2d 144 Cuellar-Valerio v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
919 F.2d 144
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Juan Manuel CUELLAR-VALERIO, aka Juan Manuel
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 8, 1990.*
Decided Nov. 30, 1990.
Before TANG, O'SCANNLAIN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The petitioner, Juan Manuel Cuellar-Valerio (aka Juan Manuel Quellar-Valerio), appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("the Board") denial of a motion for reconsideration of the immigration judge's decision and the Board's dismissal of his appeal. The immigration judge's decision of March 15, 1988, denied a motion for continuance and a request for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(c) (1988).1
Cuellar-Valerio claims he was denied a fair hearing when the immigration judge refused to grant his request for a continuance so he could present the testimony of his wife, a United States citizen. He also claims the Board abused its discretion in denying him relief under section 212(c).
For the reasons stated in the Board's decision and order of November 1, 1989, we affirm the denial of the motion for reconsideration and the dismissal of Cuellar-Valerio's appeal. We find it was within the sound discretion of the immigration judge to deny the motion for a continuance, particularly where the petitioner's several motions for continuances previously had been granted. See Baires v. I.N.S., 856 F.2d 89, 91 n. 4, 93 (9th Cir.1988). Because of the time delays granted in this case, the petitioner had ample opportunity to marshal the evidence in his favor.
In reaching its decision, the Board considered all the evidence before it, including an affidavit submitted by the petitioner's wife on August 14, 1989, in support of the motion for reconsideration. The petitioner was not prejudiced by this process. See id. at 91. The Board thoroughly explained the facts in the case and the reasons for its decision. After a review of the entire record, we find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that the factors adverse to the petitioner outweighed the strong equities in his favor.
The petition for review is DENIED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3
Section 212(c) states:
Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily and not under an order of deportation, and who are returning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years, may be admitted in the discretion of the Attorney General without regard to the provisions of paragraphs (1) to (25), (30), and (31) of subsection (a) of this section. Nothing contained in this subsection shall limit the authority of the Attorney General to exercise the discretion vested in him under section 1181(b) of this title.