Case Name: Sarabjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 356 F. App'x 934
Docket Number: No. 06-71386
Parties: Sarabjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 356
Pages: 934–934

Head Matter:
Sarabjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71386.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Decided Dec. 14, 2009.
Jeffrey Martins, Esq., Law Offices of Jeffrey Martins, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Marion E. Guyton, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sarabjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir. 1988), we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Singh's motion for a continuance where he claimed he was tired and could not testify properly. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause); Baires, 856 F.2d at 91.
It follows that Singh's due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.