Case Name: Edwin Pagtakhan CALAYAG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-04
Citations: 360 F. App'x 955
Docket Number: No. 07-70020
Parties: Edwin Pagtakhan CALAYAG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 955–955

Head Matter:
Edwin Pagtakhan CALAYAG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70020.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 4, 2010.
Audra Rose Behne, Law Office of Audra R. Behne A Professional Corporation, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Edwin Pagtakhan Calayag, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to continue and ordering him removed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not violate due process in denying Calayag's motion to continue because the IJ had previously granted two continuances and Calayag's eligibility for an S visa remained speculative at the time of his last hearing. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no prejudice where IJ denied a continuance because relief only available speculatively).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.