NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MORALES ZAVALETA, AKA Gildardo Morales, AKA Jose Gildar Morales

- Zavalet, AKA Jose G. Moraleszavelta, AKA Tomas Olivares,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72447 Agency No. A205

- 719

- 277

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
S ubmitted May 21, 2019 ** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges

. Jose Morales Zavaleta , 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”) denial of his application s for cancellat ion of removal

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 72447

and voluntary departure

. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Khan v. Holder , 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009)

. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
cont inuance. Ahmed v. Holder , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009)

. W e dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
W e lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Morales Zavaleta failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives , and Morales Zavaleta’s hardship contentions are not colorable
claims that in voke our jurisdiction. See Vilchiz

- Soto v. Holder , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding hardship); Martinez

- Rosas v. G onzales , 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying
Mor ales Zavaleta’s request for a continuance where he did not demonstrate good

cause. See Ahmed , 569 F.3d at 1012 (listing factors to consider); Singh v. Holder , 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a
continuance based on . . . speculations.”) ; Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).3 17

- 72447

We reject as unsupported Morales Zavaleta’s contention that the IJ ’s
conduct violated his due process rights and deprived him of a full and fair hearing

. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales , 457 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner “had ample opportunity to present his case, and the record as a whole does not suggest that the IJ did not conduct the hearing with an open mind”)

. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s dis cretionary denial of voluntary departure , and Morales Zavaleta’s related due process contention is not a colorable claim that invokes our jurisdiction

. Se e Corro

- Barragan v. Holder , 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court’ s jurisdiction over challen ges to the denial of voluntary departure is limited to constituti onal claims or questions of law) ; Martinez

- Rosas , 424 F.3d at 930

. We reject Morales Zavaleta’s contention that remand is warranted under
Pereira v. Sessions , 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). See Karingithi v. Whitaker , 913 F.3d 1158, 1160

- 62 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date information to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court). The government ’ s motion (Docket Entry No. 25) to strike Morales Zavaleta’s September 12, 2018, filing (Docket Entry No. 24) is granted. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.