Case ID: f-appx_487/html/0403-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Viviana Jamal NIJMEH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73222.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 19, 2012.
    Viviana Jamal Nijmeh, Burbank, CA, pro se.
    Edward Earl Wiggers, Esquire, 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: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Viviana Jamal Nijmeh, a native and citizen of Chile and a citizen of Jordan, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Nijmeh’s request for a continuance where Nijmeh failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012-15. It follows that Ni-jmeh’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice for a due process violation).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Ni-jmeh failed to show the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.