Case Name: Pedro SANTAMARIA-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-20
Citations: 706 F. App'x 916
Docket Number: No. 16-72826
Parties: Pedro SANTAMARIA-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 706
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
Pedro SANTAMARIA-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-72826
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 20, 2017
Reza Athari, Esquire, Attorney, Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner
Lindsay Corliss, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of -Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, 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
Pedro Santamaría-Delgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency's denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause Santama-ria-Delgado's motion for a continuance to collaterally attack his theft conviction, where he had not begun to seek post-conviction relief on the date of his final merits hearing, and where he was represented by an attorney of his choice. See Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015) (no abuse of discretion where alien had been in proceedings for six months and had "ample time" to seek post-conviction relief) (citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.