
    Rosalina GONZALEZ-REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74750.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2010.
    Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    
      Dalin Riley Holyoak, Esquire, Trial, Tim Ramnitz, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, 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

Rosalina Gonzalez-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion for a continuance and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir.1988), and de novo questions of law, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Gonzalez-Reyes’ third motion for a continuance where Petitioner failed to show eligibility for any relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ has authority to grant a continuance upon a showing of good cause); Baires, 856 F.2d at 92-93. It follows that Petitioner’s due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

Gonzalez-Reyes’ contention that the IJ erred by denying her post-conclusion voluntary departure is unsupported by the record because she did not request such relief.

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