Case Name: Juan MIRANDA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-12
Citations: 485 F. App'x 242
Docket Number: No. 11-71694
Parties: Juan MIRANDA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 485
Pages: 242–242

Head Matter:
Juan MIRANDA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71694.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 12, 2012.
William J. Baker, Moreno & Associates, Chula Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
Dawn S. Conrad, Trial, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial, 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: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
Juan Miranda-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") summarily affirming the decision of an immigration judge ("IJ") to deny Miranda-Sanchez's motion to continue his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for an abuse of discretion an IJ's denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Miranda-Sanchez's motion to continue because Miranda-Sanchez did not demonstrate good cause for a continuance, see Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009) ("[A]n IJ 'may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.' " (citation omitted)), where, at the time of the hearing, Miranda-Sanchez's eligibility for adjustment of status remained only a remote possibility due to the current unavailability of a visa based on his fourth-preference family-sponsored visa petition, see 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1245.1(g)(1); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (finding that the IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying a continuance because, among other reasons, relief from removal in the form of adjustment of status was not immediately available to the petitioner at the time of the hearing); Matter of Rajah, 25 I. & N. Dec. 127, 136 (BIA 2009) (holding that an immigrant who has a prima facie approvable visa petition and application for adjustment of status may not be able to show good cause for a continuance if visa availability is too remote).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.