Braulia Moralez-Esiquio 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BRAULIA MORALEZ-ESIQUIO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72980
Agency No. A099-577-374
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Braulia Moralez-Esiquio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her request for a continuance. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
JAN 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72980 2
denial of a continuance. 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 IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance because
Moralez-Esiquio did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ
may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown).
We lack jurisdiction to review Moralez-Esiquio’s due process claim because
she failed to raise it before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --