Nicolae Enache 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NICOLAE ENACHE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70988
Agency No. A075-006-703
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Nicolae Enache, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) deportation order. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, and
FILED
JUL 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70988 2
de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-
Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). We deny the
petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance because Enache
did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion
for continuance for good cause shown). It follows that Enache cannot establish the
IJ violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
The BIA correctly determined that Enache failed to demonstrate prejudice,
so his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails. See Rojas-Garcia v.
Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance
of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --