Case Name: Raul Saucedo ORNELAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-14
Citations: 471 F. App'x 743
Docket Number: No. 10-73131
Parties: Raul Saucedo ORNELAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 743–744

Head Matter:
Raul Saucedo ORNELAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73131.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.
Filed March 14, 2012.
Law Office of Sylvia L. Esparza, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
Raul Saucedo Ornelas, pro se.
Monica Antoun, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-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: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, 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
Raul Saucedo Ornelas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, and review de novo due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in declining to continue Ornelas' proceedings on the ground that Ornelas failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ has authority to grant a continuance upon a showing of good cause); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no abuse of discretion in denial of continuance where relief was not immediately available to petitioner). It follows that Ornelas' due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice 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.