
    Santiago Enrique GUTIERREZ-CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-73919.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
    
    Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
    Santiago Enrique Gutierrez-Campos, Huntington Beach, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Thomas Fatouros, Esquire, Trial, Stephen J. Flynn, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAYY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Santiago Enrique Gutierrez-Campos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion an IJ’s denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Gutierrez-Campos’ request for a continuance because his labor certification had not been approved at the time of the hearing. See id. at 1247 (IJ’s denial of an additional continuance was within discretion where the “labor certification application ... had not been approved at the time of the hearing and no relief was then immediately available”). It follows that the IJ did not violate due process. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to succeed on a due process claim).

We are not persuaded by Gutierrez-Campos’ remaining contentions.

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