Case Name: Rey Emidio MALDONADO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-15
Citations: 447 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 06-70690
Parties: Rey Emidio MALDONADO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 447
Pages: 779–780

Head Matter:
Rey Emidio MALDONADO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70690.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
Filed Aug. 15, 2011.
Marc A. Karlin, Esq., Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Jennifer Paisner, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office Of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, 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
Rey Emidio Maldonado-Hernandez, 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 request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion by denying a second continuance to allow Maldonado-Hernandez to seek post-conviction relief. See id. at 1247.
We lack jurisdiction to review Maldonado-Hernandez's contentions regarding his allegedly defective criminal conviction, as we cannot collaterally reexamine his conviction. See Ortega de Robles v. INS, 58 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir.1995).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.