SE YOUNG AN; MI JUNG AN, a.k.a. Mi Jung Jin; EUI LEE AN; JOO LEE AN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SE YOUNG AN; MI JUNG AN, a.k.a. Mi
Jung Jin; EUI LEE AN; JOO LEE AN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73538
Agency Nos. A096-062-395
A096-062-394
A096-062-396
A096-062-397
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.
Mi Jung An and family, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal
from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73538 2
continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam), and review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioners’ seventh request
for a continuance over a three-year period where petitioners’ eligibility for relief
was speculative. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no abuse of discretion in
denying a motion to continue where relief was not immediately available).
The agency properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the
denial of Mi Jung An’s Form I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker. See
Matter of Marcal Neto, 25 I. & N. Dec. 169, 174 (BIA 2010) (the IJ and the BIA
do not have jurisdiction over visa petitions); 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(b), (n)(2). The
agency properly concluded that petitioners were ineligible for adjustment of status.
See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner had not
shown prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status where she failed to submit
evidence of an approved I-140).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --