Faustino Isalas Estrada 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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FAUSTINO ISALAS ESTRADA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72426
Agency No. A098-177-347
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Faustino Isalas Estrada, 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”) decision denying his motion to continue proceedings.
FILED
DEC 22 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 06-72426 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to continue 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 the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Isalas Estrada’s motion to
continue because Isalas Estrada did not establish good cause and because the IJ
granted Isalas Estrada the only relief for which he was eligible. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.29 (an IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown”);
Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92-93 (9th Cir. 1988).
It follows that Isalas Estrada’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a due process
violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --