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:T501,MEMORANDUM ** Ramon Neon Cruz-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance where Cruz-Garcia failed to establish that he was eligible for relief or good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (IJ’s denial of an additional continuance was within discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner). Cruz-Garcia has not established a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation). The agency did not err in concluding that Cruz-Garcia was ineligible for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229e(b)(3). 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:T521,

MEMORANDUM **

Ramon Neon Cruz-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance where Cruz-Garcia failed to establish that he was eligible for relief or good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (IJ’s denial of an additional continuance was within discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner). Cruz-Garcia has not established a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

The agency did not err in concluding that Cruz-Garcia was ineligible for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229e(b)(3).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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