FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO ZAMBRANO, No. 10-70261
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-546-918
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 11, 2011 **
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Zambrano, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
*
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).
denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.
2008) (per curiam), and review de novo constitutional claims, id., and questions of
law, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition
for review.
The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Zambrano’s motion for a
continuance to await Congress’ enactment of immigration reform. See Sandoval-
Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247. Because there was no error in the IJ’s decision, it follows
that Zambrano’s due process rights were not violated. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on due process
claim).
Contrary to Zambrano’s contention, the BIA applied the correct legal
standard in reviewing the IJ’s decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-70261