22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T49d,MEMORANDUM Juan Francisco Hernandez-Canchola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1248 , 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Hernandez-Canchola’s request for a continuance because he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 ; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009) (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the denial); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4ca,

MEMORANDUM

Juan Francisco Hernandez-Canchola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1248 , 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Hernandez-Canchola’s request for a continuance because he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 ; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009) (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the denial); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.