Case Name: Hector A. PADILLA, a.k.a. Alex Padilla, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-25
Citations: 424 F. App'x 634
Docket Number: No. 10-70294
Parties: Hector A. PADILLA, a.k.a. Alex Padilla, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 424
Pages: 634–635

Head Matter:
Hector A. PADILLA, a.k.a. Alex Padilla, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70294.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 25, 2011.
Alejandro Garcia, Law Offices of Alejandro Garcia, Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
Dana Michelle Camilleri, OIL, DOJ-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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, 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
Hector A. Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1245-46 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion or violate Padilla's constitutional right to due process by denying Padilla's motion for a continuance. See id. at 1247; Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 972 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.