Case Name: Carmelita Lapitan ASUNCION, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-07
Citations: 286 F. App'x 525
Docket Number: No. 06-73226
Parties: Carmelita Lapitan ASUNCION, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 525–526

Head Matter:
Carmelita Lapitan ASUNCION, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73226.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed Aug. 7, 2008.
Audra R. Behne, Esquire, Law Office of Audra R. Behne, A Professional Corporation, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-Fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Carmelita Lapitan Asuncion, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her a continuance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.Sd 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in denying Asuncion's motion for a continuance because the IJ previously granted a six-month continuance and Asuncion's eligibility for an S Visa remained speculative at the time of her March 17, 2005 hearing. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an individual must show error and substantial prejudice); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no prejudice where IJ denied a continuance because relief was only speculatively available).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate fgr publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.