
    Juana SANTOS-MARTINEZ, aka: Juana Angeles Salazar-Juarez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71059.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted on Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Oct. 1, 2009.
    Juana Angeles Salazar-Juarez, Vista, CA, pro se.
    District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Edward C. Durant, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juana Santos-Martinez, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir.1988), we deny the petition for review.

The agency properly deemed Santos-Martinez’s application abandoned after she failed to file it by the deadline set by the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c). The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Santos-Martinez’s motion to continue where proceedings had already been continued for preparation and filing of applications and Santos-Martinez did not establish good cause. 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 91.

Santos-Martinez’s due process claim therefore fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

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