
    Jesus Dultra DY, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70956
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 04, 2016
    Florian Purganan, Esquire, Attorney, Hanis Greaney Prothero, PLLC, Kent, WA, for Petitioner
    Jessica Dawgert, Trial Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: TASHIMA,. SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit-Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Dultra Dy, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Dy’s request for a further continuance for failure to demonstrate good cause, where his first visa petition had been denied and he did not show a likelihood of success on his second visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (outlining factors for the reviewing court to consider when reviewing the agency’s denial of a continuance); Malilia v. Holder, 632 F.3d 598, 606 (9th Cir. 2011) (listing factors the agency should consider in determining whether to continue proceedings for adjudication of a pending visa petition).

Dy’s contention that the agency did not apply the correct standard or consider the relevant factors in denying the continuance is not supported by the record. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that the agency applies the correct legal standard where it expressly cites and applies relevant case law in rendering its decision); Malilla, 632 F.3d at 606 (applying factors set forth in Matter of Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785 (BIA 2009)).

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