
    Romilo MAEDA-GARCIA; Wilfredo Maeda; Moris Rubilio Maeda-Maeda; Brenda Analu Maeda-Maeda, Petitioners, . v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-75039.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submission Vacated and Deferred Aug. 2, 2011.
    Submitted Aug. 4, 2011.
    Resubmitted Sept. 15, 2015.
    Filed Sept. 17, 2015.
    As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 20, 2015.
    Willie Jordan-Curtis, The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, AZ, Petitioners.
    
      Wilfredo Maeda, pro se.
    Moris Rubilio Maeda-Maeda, pro se.
    Brenda Analu Maeda-Maeda, pro se.
    OIL, Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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