
    Luis Alberto RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74605.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
    Helen B. Zebel, Esquire, Law Office of Helen B. Zebel, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Nicole N. Murley, OIL, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, 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

Luis Alberto Ramirez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for continuance of removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance because the record did not show that Alberto Ramirez’s counsel took any steps to acquire a second medical opinion regarding the health of Alberto Ramirez’s qualifying relative before the merits hearing. See id. at 1012-13 (evaluating, among other factors, the reasonableness of the alien’s conduct).

Alberto Ramirez’s contentions that the agency violated his due process rights by denying the motion for continuance and marking “for identification purposes only” some of his proffered hardship documentation do not amount to colorable constitutional claims. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[Tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

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