Armando Bajacan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

1. We lack jurisdiction over Armando Bajacan’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying the 1-130 visa petition that his wife had filed on his behalf. That petition does not challenge a final order of removal directly. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a); Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir.2009) (“The carefully crafted congressional scheme governing review of decisions of the BIA limits this court’s jurisdiction to the review of final orders of removal.”). Nor is the challenge “inextricably linked” to his removal order. See Morales-Izquierdo v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 600 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir.2010). Were Bajacan to succeed on the merits of his visa petition challenge, his removal order would still stand. See Singh v. Holder, 771 F.3d 647 (9th Cir.2014) (noting that, without reopening, petitioner was still subject to a final order of removal, even though he had received an immediate relative visa).

2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of Bajacan’s motion for a sixth continuance. See Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th Cir.2008). Bajacan had already been granted five…