Case Name: Victor Hugo ALEJO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-25
Citations: 473 F. App'x 718
Docket Number: No. 06-73319
Parties: Victor Hugo ALEJO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
Victor Hugo ALEJO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73319.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 25, 2012.
Homayun F. Zadeh, Law Office of Homayun F. Zadeh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Kathryn L. Deangelis, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents.
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, 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
Victor Hugo Alejo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's decision ("IJ") denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the request for a continuance and review de novo due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion or violate due process in denying Alejo's request for a continuance where Alejo's eligibility for relief was speculative. See id. at 1247 (no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to continue where relief was not immediately available); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) ("To prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings, [a petitioner] 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.