Case Name: Maria ESTRADA-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-24
Citations: 411 F. App'x 958
Docket Number: No. 08-73167
Parties: Maria ESTRADA-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 958–959

Head Matter:
Maria ESTRADA-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73167.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 24, 2011.
Maria Estrada-Delgado, Tacoma, WA, pro se.
OIL, Kathryn Deangelis, Corey Leigh Farrell, 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: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, 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
Maria Estrada-Delgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, 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 in denying a continuance and entering a removal order where Estrada-Delgado failed to demonstrate eligibility for benefits under the Family Unity Program or submit any other relief application. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to continue and ordering petitioner removed where relief was not immediately available).
Estrada-Delgado's remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.