Case ID: f-appx_361/html/0713-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Faustino Isalas ESTRADA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72426.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 22, 2009.
    Manuel F. Rios, III, Rosaura Del Carmen Rodriguez, Rios Cantor, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Leah V. Durant, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Faustino Isalas Estrada, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to continue proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue and review de novo claims of due process violations. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Isaías Estrada’s motion to continue because Isaías Estrada did not establish good cause and because the IJ granted Isaías Estrada the only relief for which he was eligible. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown”); Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92-93 (9th Cir.1988).

It follows that Isaías Estrada’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a due process violation).

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