Dung Kien Tang, a.k.a. Dung Tang 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DUNG KIEN TANG, a.k.a. Dung Tang,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72232
Agency No. A041-967-768
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Dung Kien Tang, a native and citizen of Laos, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for 212(c) relief for failure to
FILED
SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72232 2
prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, including due process claims, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th
Cir. 2001), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of an application for
relief for failure to comply with fingerprinting regulations, Cui v. Mukasey, 538
F.3d 1289, 1291-92 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Tang’s request for a
continuance and his application for 212(c) relief. The IJ instructed Tang in both
oral and written format to submit himself for fingerprinting and informed him of
the consequences of a failure to do so, yet Tang could not provide a reasonable
explanation for his failure to comply with the fingerprinting requirement. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.47(d). Accordingly, Tang has not established good cause for his
failure to comply. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c); cf. Cui, 538 F.3d at 1293-99. Tang’s
due process contention fails as well. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring agency error for a petitioner to establish a violation of due
process).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --