Case Name: Juan Francisco HERNANDEZ-CANCHOLA, a.k.a. Juan Bermedo-Arias, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-01
Citations: 535 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 12-72104
Parties: Juan Francisco HERNANDEZ-CANCHOLA, a.k.a. Juan Bermedo-Arias, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 535
Pages: 623–624

Head Matter:
Juan Francisco HERNANDEZ-CANCHOLA, a.k.a. Juan Bermedo-Arias, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72104.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2013.
Filed Aug. 1, 2013.
Nora Amelia Gutierrez, . Law Offices of Gutierrez & Associates, Pico Rivera, CA, for Petitioner.
Shahrzad Baghai, OIL, Micheline K. Hershey, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, 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
Juan Francisco Hernandez-Canchola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1248, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Hernandez-Canchola's request for a continuance because he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009) (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the denial); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.