Edwin Pagtakhan Calayag 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).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN PAGTAKHAN CALAYAG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70020
Agency No. A097-368-227
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Edwin Pagtakhan Calayag, a native and citizen of the Philippines, 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 and
FILED
JAN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NHY/Research 07-70020 2
ordering him removed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
de novo claims of due process violations, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d
1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not violate due process in denying Calayag’s motion to
continue because the IJ had previously granted two continuances and Calayag’s
eligibility for an S visa remained speculative at the time of his last hearing. See
Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring substantial
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at
1247 (no prejudice where IJ denied a continuance because relief only available
speculatively).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --