
    Luis LARIOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71318.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2010.
    
      Nadeem H. Makada, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Richard Zan-fardino, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Larios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam), and review de novo claims of due process violations, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Larios’ motion for a continuance because Larios did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (denial of continuance was within IJ’s discretion where relief was not immediately available). Larios’ due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).

Larios has waived any challenge to the denial of his cancellation of removal application. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

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.
     