Case Name: Alfredo SALDANA-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-24
Citations: 473 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 11-70522
Parties: Alfredo SALDANA-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 717–718

Head Matter:
Alfredo SALDANA-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70522.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 24, 2012.
Diana M. Bailey, Law Office of Diana M. Bailey, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
OIL, Zoe Jaye Heller, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Alfredo Saldana-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Ahmed, v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Saldana-Ramirez failed to show good cause for a continuance pending the completion of post-conviction relief proceedings in state court where no favorable evidence was excluded as a result of the denial and the requested continuance would have been indefinite in nature. See id. at 1012-14. Contrary to Saldana-Ramirez's contention, the agency did not apply an incorrect legal standard in ruling on his motion.
We deny Saldana-Ramirez's motion for judicial notice of documents outside the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). Accordingly, we deny as moot the government's motion to strike.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.