
    Javier Ramirez SALASAR, aka Javier Ramirez, aka Javier Ramirez-Salazar, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73562
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    August 2, 2016
    Andrew Kenneth Nietor, Law Office of Andrew Nietor, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Benjamin Zeitlin, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Javier Ramirez Salasar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying cancellation of removal and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, We review for substantial evidence factual findings and review de novo questions of law. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in denying cancellation of removal for failure to establish lawful admission, where substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Ramirez Salasar did not perform agricultural work in the U.S. during the qualifying time period to qualify for permanent resident status under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers program. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1) (requiring an alien to have been “lawfully permitted for permanent residence for not less than five years” to be granted cancellation of removal); Segura v. Holder, 605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Although an alien may have been admitted for permanent residence, he has not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence if he was precluded from obtaining permanent resident status due to an inability to meet the prerequisites.” (emphasis in original)).

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand or in declining to grant a continuance, where Ramirez Salasar did not establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (motion, to reopen can be denied for “failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (listing factors to consider when reviewing the denial of a continuance); see also Mat ter of Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 790 (BIA 2009) (focus of the inquiry when determining whether to grant a continuance is the apparent ultimate likelihood of success).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     