Case Name: Nemecio CHAIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 195 F. App'x 601
Docket Number: No. 05-72305
Parties: Nemecio CHAIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 601–602

Head Matter:
Nemecio CHAIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72305.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed July 31, 2006.
Frank H. Kim, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Regina Byrd, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nemecio Chairez, 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") order denying his application for cancellation of removal and denying his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Chairez's request for a continuance, where the request was made the day of the December 4, 2003 hearing, and yet was based on events that occurred months earlier. See Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 883 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004). It follows that the IJ did not violate Chairez's due process rights in denying a continuance. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (where there is no error, there is no due process violation).
Chairez's remaining contentions lack merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.