
    Marisol ACEVEDO-ROJAS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71852.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
    
    Filed Jan. 26, 2016.
    Miguel Angel Olano, Miguel Olano, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jason Wisecup, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marisol Acevedo-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion 'the denial of a motion to continue and review de novo claims of due process violations. 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 by denying Acevedo-Rojas’s motion for a second continuance to seek post-conviction relief where Acevedo-Rojas failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown). Acevedo-Rojas conceded removability, she had been granted a prior continuance for the same purpose, and post-conviction relief remained a speculative possibility at the time of her final hearing. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (the denial of a continuance was within the agency’s discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner).

Acevedo-Rojas’s due process claim fails because she has not established error. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process challenge).

We deny Acevedo-Rojas’s request that the court take judicial notice of country conditions in Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).

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