Meliton Tirado-Pineda 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
IH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELITON TIRADO-PINEDA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70678
Agency No. A091-610-188
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Meliton Tirado-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
FILED
DEC 08 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

IH/Research 07-70678 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Sanchez-Cruz v. INS,
255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Tirado-Pineda’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by
refusing to continue his immigration proceedings fails because Tirado-Pineda did
not establish “good cause” for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
Tirado-Pineda also has not established that he was prejudiced by the denial of a
continuance because nothing in the record shows that he was eligible for a § 212(c)
waiver or any other relief from removal. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497
F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Tirado-Pineda’s remaining contentions
because he failed to properly exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --