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:T50b,MEMORANDUM Alfredo Saldana-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Ahmed, v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Saldana-Ramirez failed to show good cause for a continuance pending the completion of post-conviction relief proceedings in state court where no favorable evidence was excluded as a result of the denial and the requested continuance would have been indefinite in nature. See id. at 1012-14 . Contrary to Saldana-Ramirez’s contention, the agency did not apply an incorrect legal standard in ruling on his motion. We deny Saldana-Ramirez’s motion for judicial notice of documents outside the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). Accordingly, we deny as moot the government’s motion to strike. 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:T53d,

MEMORANDUM

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

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Saldana-Ramirez failed to show good cause for a continuance pending the completion of post-conviction relief proceedings in state court where no favorable evidence was excluded as a result of the denial and the requested continuance would have been indefinite in nature. See id. at 1012-14 . Contrary to Saldana-Ramirez’s contention, the agency did not apply an incorrect legal standard in ruling on his motion.

We deny Saldana-Ramirez’s motion for judicial notice of documents outside the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc). Accordingly, we deny as moot the government’s motion to strike.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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