Case Name: Jorge MENDEZ-CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-27
Citations: 229 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 05-73582
Parties: Jorge MENDEZ-CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 661–661

Head Matter:
Jorge MENDEZ-CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73582.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 27, 2007.
Jorge Mendez-Cortez, Escondido, CA, pro se.
Peter J. Musser, Esq., Law Office of Peter James Musser, Vista, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Christopher C. Fuller, Jonathan F. Potter, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Mendez-Cortez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of a motion to continue. See Nakamoto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 883 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance to allow Mendez-Cortez to apply for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i), because, contrary to his contention, Mendez-Cortez was not then eligible for adjustment of status under that provision.
Mendez-Cortez's challenge to the BIA's decision to streamline his case is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 855 (9th Cir.2003)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.