
    Aurora Catulong AUTOR, aka Aurora Catulong, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70052.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed April 6, 2009.
    Audra Rose Behne, Law Office of Audra R. Behne, A Professional Corporation, Sherman Oaks, CA, Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, Jessica Eden Sherman, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aurora Catulong Autor, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to continue proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not violate due process by affirming the IJ’s denial of Autor’s motion for a continuance because the IJ previously granted three continuances and Autor’s eligibility for an S-visa remained speculative. See id. at 1247 (no prejudice when an IJ denied a continuance after proceedings were previously continued and where relief remained speculative); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an individual must show error and substantial prejudice).

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