Sanchez Sosav.Holder

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitApr 5, 2010
373 Fed. Appx. 719 (9th Cir. 2010)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • In re Sosa

    …(3) An alien who has filed a prima facie approvable petition for a U visa with the United States Citizenship…

lock 1 Citing casekeyboard_arrow_right

No. 07-73167.

Submitted March 16, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed April 5, 2010.

Meredith R. Brown, Esquire, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.

Dalin Holyoak, Esquire, OIL, Barry J. Pettinato, Esquire, Russell J.E. Verby, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A095-308-750, A095-308-751, A095-308-752, A095-308-753.

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cezareo Sanchez Sosa and Paz Rosalba Sanchez, husband and wife, and their adult children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order, and denying their motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005), and the denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review and remand.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners' motion to remand proceedings to apply for adjustment of status because they failed to establish prima facie eligibility for such relief. See Ochoa-Amaya v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2007).

The IJ abused his discretion in failing to grant petitioners' motion for a continuance so that they could pursue a U visa application. They submitted appropriate documentation to establish that they were eligible for such relief. See Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1013-14 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Ramirez Sanchez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1254, 1255-56 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, we need not reach petitioners' due process contention.

Each party shall bear their own costs.


An alternative to Lexis that does not break the bank.

Casetext does more than Lexis for less than $65 per month.