
    Jason Chung YU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71120
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 4, 2016
    Margaret W. Wong, Esquire, Attorney, Margaret W. Wong <⅞ Associates, Cleveland, OH, for Petitioner
    Patricia Bruckner, Trial Attorney, Elizabeth K. Fitzgerald-Sambou, Trial Attorney, Enitan Otunla, Trial Attorney, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, 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

Jason Chung Yu, a native and citizen of Taiwan, 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 due process challenges. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Yu’s request for a continuance for failure to show good cause, where success on his motion for post-conviction relief was speculative and he failed to establish prejudice. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (no abuse of discretion or denial of due process to deny a continuance where relief was not immediately available and alien did not establish prejudice); Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015) (no abuse of discretion to deny a continuance where petitioner already had six months to pursue post-conviction relief).

Yu’s contentions that he was denied his right to counsel and did not receive a full and fair hearing are not supported by the record.

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