FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA VALLES DE MENDEZ, No. 10-72123
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-670-165
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Maria Valles De Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for cancellation of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying a continuance on the ground
that Valles De Mendez did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29
(an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown).
To the extent it is raised, we lack jurisdiction to review Valles De Mendez’s
unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 10-72123