
    David LIM, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74594.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
    The Law Offices of Kurt Miller, Morgan Hill, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Russell J.E. Verby, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2), Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Lim, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for adjustment of status and his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Gonzalez v. INS, 82 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir.1996). We review due process claims de novo. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the IJ’s denial of Lim’s request for a continuance. See Gonzalez, 82 F.3d at 908. The proceedings had already been continued numerous times and Lim had ample opportunity to submit an application for relief from removal prior to July 28, 2004.

Lim’s due process contentions are unavailing because he failed to show prejudice. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899-900.

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