Dinesh Prasad 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DINESH PRASAD,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70311
Agency No. A078-186-128
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Dinesh Prasad, a native and citizen of Fiji, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
FILED
AUG 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-70311 2
motion for a continuance, Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir.
2008), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Owino v. Holder, 575
F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), and review de novo questions of law,
Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Prasad’s motion for a third
continuance for failure to show good cause where the Form I-130 Petition for
Alien Relative on Prasad’s behalf had been denied and an appeal was pending at
the time of his hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ has authority to grant a
continuance upon a showing of good cause); Karapetyan, 543 F.3d at 1129. It
follows that Prasad’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a
due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review Prasad’s claim that the IJ’s failure to grant
him a continuance denied him an opportunity to present evidence of changed
country conditions because this claim was not raised before the BIA. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to
review contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --