Case Name: Hilario SALGADO-ROSAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-07
Citations: 382 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 06-73563
Parties: Hilario SALGADO-ROSAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
Hilario SALGADO-ROSAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73563.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 7, 2010.
John M. Pope, Esq., Deniz S. Arik, Sten-der & Pope, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Aviva Poezter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer Paisner Williams, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Hilario Salgado-Rosas, 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 motion to continue and ordering him removed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, 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 abuse its discretion in denying Salgado-Rosas' motion to continue because a visa was not available to Salgado-Rosas and his eligibility for relief was speculative. See id. at 1247 (denial of a motion to continue was not an abuse of discretion where petitioner was not eligible for relief).
Salgado-Rosas' period of voluntary departure will begin to run upon issuance of this court's mandate. See Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2004) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.