FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 08 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELITON TIRADO-PINEDA, No. 07-70678
Petitioner, Agency No. A091-610-188
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Meliton Tirado-Pineda, 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
IH/Research
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Sanchez-Cruz v. INS,
255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Tirado-Pineda’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by
refusing to continue his immigration proceedings fails because Tirado-Pineda did
not establish “good cause” for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
Tirado-Pineda also has not established that he was prejudiced by the denial of a
continuance because nothing in the record shows that he was eligible for a § 212(c)
waiver or any other relief from removal. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497
F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Tirado-Pineda’s remaining contentions
because he failed to properly exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
IH/Research 2 07-70678