Case Name: Adrian RODARTE-RODARTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-20
Citations: 529 F. App'x 830
Docket Number: No. 06-71600
Parties: Adrian RODARTE-RODARTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 830–831

Head Matter:
Adrian RODARTE-RODARTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71600.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 20, 2013.
Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-Distriet Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Stephen Elliott, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Patricia A. Smith, Esq., for Respondent.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Adrian Rodarte-Rodarte, 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 of removal and denial of his request 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), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodarte-Rodarte's request for a second continuance for failure to show good cause where he had already been granted a continuance for the purpose of applying for humanitarian reinstatement of his visa petition but had failed to do so during the continuance period. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown); Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.