Case Name: Mostafa Mahmoud MOHAMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-22
Citations: 439 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 10-70574
Parties: Mostafa Mahmoud MOHAMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 577–577

Head Matter:
Mostafa Mahmoud MOHAMED, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70574.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 22, 2011.
Roni Rotholz, Esquire, Law Offices of Roni Rotholz, Walnut Creek, CA, for Petitioner.
Nancy Canter, 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: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Mostafa Mahmoud Mohamed, a native and citizen of Egypt, 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Cui v. Mukasey, 588 F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th Cir.2008), we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance on the ground that Mohamed did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown); see also Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (IJ did not abuse discretion in denying a continuance where alien had no approved visa petition and no relief was immediately available).
The IJ also did not abuse his discretion by denying Mohamed's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture because Mohamed did not establish good cause for failing to provide his fingerprints as ordered, and the IJ warned him that failure to comply would result in the denial of his applications. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.10; cf. Cui, 538 F.3d at 1293-96.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.