
    Oscar Edgardo VIGIL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74830.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 23, 2010.
    Oscar Edgardo Vigil, Lancaster, CA, pro se.
    Matt Crapo, OIL, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Edgardo Vigil, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims and questions of law, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Vigil does not challenge the BIA’s determination that his conviction for violating CaLPenal Code § 422 is a crime of violence aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), which renders him removable, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and ineligible for cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3).

Because the BIA’s determination that Vigil was convicted of an aggravated felony conviction was dispositive of his cancellation of removal claim, we do not reach Vigil’s contention that the IJ’s alternate determination, that Vigil failed to meet the seven-year continuous physical presence requirement, was in error. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25, 97 S.Ct. 200, 50 L.Ed.2d 190 (1976).

To the extent Vigil contends that the IJ violated his due process right to a full and fair hearing by denying his request for a continuance, his contention fails because Vigil 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).

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