Case Name: Ignacio DIAZ-FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-08
Citations: 292 F. App'x 582
Docket Number: No. 05-75367
Parties: Ignacio DIAZ-FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 292
Pages: 582–582

Head Matter:
Ignacio DIAZ-FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75367.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
Filed Sept. 8, 2008.
Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Hillel Smith Fax, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ignacio Diaz-Figueroa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("I J") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and also denying his request for a continuance to apply for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Naka-moto v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 874, 883 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ's denial of Diaz-Figueroa's request for a continuance where his application for labor certification had not been approved at the time of the hearing and, therefore, no relief was immediately available. See Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.