NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO GUADALUPE GARCIA

- FELIX, AKA Pedro Garcia Garcia, AKA Pedro Guadalupe Garcia, AKA Pedro Garcia Felix,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 16

- 72921 Agency No. A208

- 362

- 528

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021 * *
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Pedro Guadalupe Garcia

- Felix , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his reques t for a continuance

* 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

AUG 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 72921

and his application s for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009)

. We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia

- Felix’s request for
a continuance to apply for adjustment of status where he did not demonstrate good

cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed , 569 F.3d at 1012 ( listing factors to be considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion) ; Sandoval

- Luna v. Mukasey , 526 F.3d 1243, 124 7 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the IJ ’ s denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion where there was no available relief)

. The agency properly considered Garcia

- Felix to have not demonstrated prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status whe re he
failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that his 1995 conviction under California Health and Safety Code (“CHSC”) § 11351 was not a controlled
substance violation that renders him inadmissible

. See 8 U.S.C. § § 1255(i)(2) , 1182(a)(2) (A)(i)(II ) ; Pereida v. Wilkinson , 141 S.Ct. 754, 76 6 (2021) ( an inconclusive conviction record is insufficient to meet applicant’s burden of proof to show eligibility for relief ). The agency did not err in concluding that Garcia

- Felix failed to establish
that his 19 95 conviction under CHSC § 11351 was not a controlled substance3 16

- 72921

violation that render s him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § § 1229b( b ) , 1182(a)(2) (A)(i)(II) ; Pereida , 141 S.Ct. at 76 6. Thus, Garcia

- Fel ix’s
cancellation of removal claim fails. The agency also did not err in concluding that Garcia

- Felix failed to establish that his 1995 conviction under CHSC § 11351 was not an aggravated felony that render s him ineligible for voluntary departure. See 8 U .S.C. § § 1229c(b) , 1101(a)(43)(B) ; Pereida , 141 S.Ct. at 76 6

. Garcia

- Felix’s motion to strike non

- party filing is granted

. The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.