Case Name: Tejpal Singh MINHAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-03
Citations: 321 F. App'x 610
Docket Number: No. 06-74265
Parties: Tejpal Singh MINHAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 321
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
Tejpal Singh MINHAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74265.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed April 3, 2009.
Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Shelley Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, 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: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tejpal Singh Minhas, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Iturr ibarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
We reject Minhas' contention that the IJ violated due process by denying a continuance, or that his due process rights were otherwise violated, because his proceedings were not "so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case." Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, Minhas failed to demonstrate prejudice. Id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.