Case Name: Yowssef Mohamed ABOWZID, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 390 F. App'x 702
Docket Number: No. 08-71461
Parties: Yowssef Mohamed ABOWZID, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 390
Pages: 702–703

Head Matter:
Yowssef Mohamed ABOWZID, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71461.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
John M. Levant, Esquire, Ask Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, Thomas J. Ste-fanski, Esquire, Ask Law Group, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, 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
Yowssef Mohamed Abowzid, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily dismissing his appeal from 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 continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance where Abowzid did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown); Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92-93 (9th Cir.1988). It follows that Abowzid's due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.