Case Name: Joseph Nicolas SALVADOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 358 F. App'x 950
Docket Number: No. 06-74068
Parties: Joseph Nicolas SALVADOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 358
Pages: 950–951

Head Matter:
Joseph Nicolas SALVADOR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74068.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Audra Rose Behne, Law Office of Audra R. Behne, A Professional Corporation, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, 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
Joseph Nicolas Salvador, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his motion to continue proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo claims of due process violations, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by denying Salvador's motion for a continuance because the IJ previously granted two continuances and Salvador's eligibility for an S-visa remained speculative. See id. at 1247 (no abuse of discretion or prejudice when an IJ denied a continuance after proceedings were previously continued and where relief remained speculative); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an individual must show error and substantial prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.