Case ID: f-appx_445/html/0026-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eduardo GUERRERO-OCHOA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71570.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 22, 2011.
    Eduardo Guerrero-Ochoa, Huntington Park, CA, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Jennifer A. Singer, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eduardo Guerrero-Ochoa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th Cir.2008), and de novo questions of law, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Guerrero-Ochoa’s motion for a continuance because he failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Cui, 538 F.3d at 1292. It follows that Guerrero-Ochoa’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

Guerrero-Ochoa’s remaining contention is unpersuasive.

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