
    Israel BONILLA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71974.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 23, 2016.
    Israel Bonilla, Van Nuys, CA, pro se.
    Christopher Buchanan, Oil, DOJ-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: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Israel Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order denying a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Bonilla a further continuance to allow him to submit his fingerprints for biometric analysis, where the IJ instructed Bonilla orally and in writing of the deadline for being fingerprinted and of the consequences of failure to meet the deadline, and where Bonilla failed to present good cause for his failure to comply. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c) (“Failure to file necessary documentation and comply with the requirements to provide biometrics ,.. within the time allowed by the immigration judge’s order, constitutes abandonment of the application and the immigration judge may enter an appropriate order dismissing the application unless the applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause.”); cf. Cui, 538 F.3d at 1293-95 (requiring a continuance where the alien did not receive adequate notice of the requirement to submit fingerprints).

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