Case Name: Marco Israel VILLAFRANCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-25
Citations: 424 F. App'x 647
Docket Number: No. 09-71316
Parties: Marco Israel VILLAFRANCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 424
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
Marco Israel VILLAFRANCO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71316.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 25, 2011.
Moby Torres, The Torres Law Firm, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Hillel Ryder Smith, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Marco Israel Villafranco, 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 motion for a continuance. 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 questions of law. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We denied the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion or deny due process by denying Villafranco's request for a continuance because he did not demonstrate good cause for one. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247. The agency did not err in con-eluding Villafranco failed to show eligibility for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) where he was never inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States. See Ortega-Cervantes v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111, 1114-19 (9th Cir.2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.