Case Name: Walter E. ALONZO-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-28
Citations: 424 F. App'x 696
Docket Number: No. 10-70298
Parties: Walter E. ALONZO-RAMIREZ, 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: 696–696

Head Matter:
Walter E. ALONZO-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70298.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 28, 2011.
Walter E. Alonzo-Ramirez, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
Anna Nelson, Jane Tracey Schaffner, 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: 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
Walter E. Alonzo-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal's ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of a request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a request for a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny in part, and dismiss in part, the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Alonzo-Ramirez's request for a continuance for additional time to prepare an application for relief, where he had already received multiple continuances for that purpose, been specifically instructed to file his application, and the delay caused inconvenience to the agency and the government. See id. at 1013-14; cf. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir. 2008).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Alonzo-Ramirez's remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).
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.