Case Name: Maria VALLES DE MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-21
Citations: 444 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 10-72123
Parties: Maria VALLES DE MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
Maria VALLES DE MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72123.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 21, 2011.
Maria Valles De Mendez, Stanton, CA, pro se.
Deitz P. Lefort, Karen L. Melnik, Judith Roberta O’Sullivan, Esquire, 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: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
Maria Valles De Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying a continuance on the ground that Valles De Mendez did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown).
To the extent it is raised, we lack jurisdiction to review Valles De Mendez's unex-hausted ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.