Case Name: Maria Luisa VALVERDE-ESCALANTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-05
Citations: 427 F. App'x 566
Docket Number: No. 09-71182
Parties: Maria Luisa VALVERDE-ESCALANTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
Maria Luisa VALVERDE-ESCALANTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71182.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 14, 2011.
Maria Luisa Valverde-Escalante, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.
OIL, Lindsay Elizabeth Williams, David V. Bernal, Ali Manuchehry, Jennifer Paisner Williams, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, 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 Luisa Valverde-Escalante, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Valverde-Escalante's motion for a continuance. See id. at 1247.
To the extent that the IJ erred by not articulating his reasons for denying the motion, this error was rendered harmless by the BIA's subsequent consideration of the issue in conducting its de novo review. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.