Case Name: Braulia MORALEZ-ESIQUIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-18
Citations: 409 F. App'x 164
Docket Number: No. 08-72980
Parties: Braulia MORALEZ-ESIQUIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 409
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
Braulia MORALEZ-ESIQUIO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72980.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 18, 2011.
Stephanie Thorpe, Manuel Rios, III, Rios-Cantor, P.S. Attorneys at Law, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Susan Houser, OIL, Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Braulia Moralez-Esiquio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance because Moralez-Esiquio did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown).
We lack jurisdiction to review Moralez-Esiquio's due process claim because she failed to raise it before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.