Case Name: KOO SOO KIM, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 374
Docket Number: No. 15-71883
Parties: KOO SOO KIM, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 374–374

Head Matter:
KOO SOO KIM, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-71883
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
FILED OCTOBER 3, 2017
Rosana Cheung, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Brett F. Kinney, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for' Attorney General, Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, 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
Koo Soo Kim, a native of South Korea and citizen of Canada, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency's denial of a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Kim's request for a 16th continuance, where he failed to establish good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded and the number of continuances previously granted); Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.