Case Name: Armando LAZO CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-25
Citations: 400 F. App'x 295
Docket Number: No. 08-73442
Parties: Armando LAZO CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 295–296

Head Matter:
Armando LAZO CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73442.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 25, 2010.
Maria Elena Andrade, I, Andrade Law Office, Inc., Boise, ID, for Petitioner.
Linda Y. Cheng, Carl Henry McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, 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
Armando Lazo Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, and review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. 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 in denying Lazo Chavez's request for a continuance where he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown); see also Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92 (9th Cir.1988).
Lazo Chavez's due process claim fails because he cannot demonstrate error. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
Lazo Chavez's remaining claims are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.