Case Name: Martha Cecilia MORALES-MALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-20
Citations: 550 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 13-70030
Parties: Martha Cecilia MORALES-MALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 550
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Martha Cecilia MORALES-MALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-70030.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
Filed Dec. 20, 2013.
Henry Cruz, Rios & Cruz, PS, SEattle, WA, for Petitioner.
OIL, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, 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
Martha Cecilia Morales-Males, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immi gration judge's decision denying her request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, and review de novo constitutional claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Morales-Males' motion for a continuance, where she failed to demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (denial of a motion to continue was not an abuse of discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner). It follows that Morales-Males' due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.