Maeda-Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch
Romilo MAEDA-GARCIA; Wilfredo Maeda; Moris Rubilio Maeda-Maeda; Brenda Analu Maeda-Maeda, Petitioners, . v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Mary M. Schroeder (author), Smith, Benitez
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 17 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROMILO MAEDA-GARCIA; No. 07-75039 WILFREDO MAEDA; MORIS RUBILIO MAEDA-MAEDA; BRENDA ANALU Agency Nos.A077-381-966 MAEDA-MAEDA, A076-865-591 A076-865-592 Petitioners, A076-865-593 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued August 4, 2011 Submitted September 15, 2015 Seattle, Washington Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, District Judge.** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. This matter was referred to mediation. Only Romilo Maeda-Garcia and Wilfredo Maeda remain as petitioners, and Wilfredo’s claims are derivative of Romilo, his father. The petitions have been referred back to us.
We appointed counsel to represent Petitioners and this court appreciates the work of the students at the University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law.
The government has filed a motion to dismiss and Petitioners’ counsel has filed an opposition. The motion is denied.
On the merits, the only claim is that the Immigration Judge should have granted a continuance of the original hearing. Romilo’s children have claimed on his behalf that his failure to appear at the hearing was excused by his having been granted advance parole by the government to visit his dying father in Guatemala.
No evidence has ever been produced to support that claim and current counsel are not able to communicate with him. In the absence of any evidence of a justification for such continuance, there was no abuse of discretion in its denial.
See Ahmed v Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).
The petitions are DENIED.