Case ID: f-appx_386/html/0737-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nicolae ENACHE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70988.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 12, 2010.
    Hugo Florentino Larios, Hugo F. Larios Law, P.L.L.C, Tempe, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mary Lee Quinn, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nicolae Enache, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) deportation order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per cu-riam). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance because Enache did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown). It follows that Enache cannot establish the IJ violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

The BIA correctly determined that Enache failed to demonstrate prejudice, so his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).

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