Maria Socorro Gallegos Matias; Jose Jimenez Mendoza v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA SOCORRO GALLEGOS
MATIAS; JOSE JIMENEZ MENDOZA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74120
Agency Nos. A079-586-738
A079-586-739
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Socorro Gallegos Matias and Jose Jimenez Mendoza, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their request
for a continuance and their application for cancellation of removal. Our
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74120 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a continuance, and review de novo claims of due process violations.
Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ oral request
for a second continuance because petitioners did not demonstrate good cause. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009)
(considering, among other factors, the nature of the evidence excluded as a result
of the denial of a continuance and the number of continuances previously granted).
It follows that petitioners’ due process challenge fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring agency error for a petitioner to establish a
due process violation).
We lack jurisdiction to the extent petitioners challenge the agency’s
discretionary determination that they failed to demonstrate exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Mendez-Castro v.
Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --