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:T4ba,*635 MEMORANDUM ** Belen Parra-AItamirano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order finding Parra-Altamirano removable as an aggravated felon. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo claims of due process violations, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review. We reject Parra-Altamirano’s contention that the IJ violated due process by denying a continuance because her proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [she] was prevented from reasonably presenting [her] case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Grageda v. INS, 12 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1993) (IJ properly denied motion to continue because pending collateral attack did not affect finality of conviction). Moreover, Parra-AItamirano failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971 . 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:T4d5,

*635 MEMORANDUM **

Belen Parra-AItamirano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order finding Parra-Altamirano removable as an aggravated felon. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo claims of due process violations, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.

We reject Parra-Altamirano’s contention that the IJ violated due process by denying a continuance because her proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [she] was prevented from reasonably presenting [her] case.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Grageda v. INS, 12 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1993) (IJ properly denied motion to continue because pending collateral attack did not affect finality of conviction). Moreover, Parra-AItamirano failed to demonstrate prejudice. See Colmenar, 210 F.3d at 971 .

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

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