Case Name: Jane Valle AGANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-13
Citations: 523 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 11-73089
Parties: Jane Valle AGANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 523
Pages: 437–437

Head Matter:
Jane Valle AGANA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-73089.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2013.
Filed June 13, 2013.
Reza Athari, Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
Jessica Eden Sherman, Esquire, 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: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, 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
Jane Valle Agana, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her request for a continuance.
We grant respondent's unopposed August 7, 2012, motion to take judicial notice of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' July 24, 2012, denial of the Form 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative filed on Agana's behalf. See Ibrahim v. Dep't of Homeland Security, 669 F.3d 983, 988 (9th Cir.2012) (taking judicial notice of the denial of petitioner's student visa application).
Agana contends that the agency abused its discretion by denying her request for a continuance pending the adjudication of the Petition for Alien Relative filed on her behalf. Because the visa petition has been denied, we dismiss this petition for review as moot. See Pedroza-Padilla v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1362, 1364 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.