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:T467,MEMORANDUM Pedro Santamaría-Delgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause Santama-ria-Delgado’s motion for a continuance to collaterally attack his theft conviction, where he had not begun to seek post-conviction relief on the date of his final merits hearing, and where he was represented by an attorney of his choice. See Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015) (no abuse of discretion where alien had been in proceedings for six months and had “ample time” to seek post-conviction relief) (citation omitted). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T494,

MEMORANDUM

Pedro Santamaría-Delgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause Santama-ria-Delgado’s motion for a continuance to collaterally attack his theft conviction, where he had not begun to seek post-conviction relief on the date of his final merits hearing, and where he was represented by an attorney of his choice. See Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015) (no abuse of discretion where alien had been in proceedings for six months and had “ample time” to seek post-conviction relief) (citation omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.