
    Luis Antonio ALVARENGA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-70852
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 20, 2017
    Carolina Gomez, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Carolina Gomez, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner
    
      OIL, Vanessa M. Otero, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Antonio Alvarenga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate Alvarenga’s right to counsel in denying his request for' a further continuance, where the IJ granted him nine months to seek counsel once he was released from detention, and the IJ warned him that no further time would be granted to prepare his applications for relief, with or without counsel. See id. at 1012 (listing factors to consider in reviewing the agency’s denial of a continuance); Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding it was not unreasonable to deny a continuance where petitioner had six months to pursue post-conviction relief),

Alvarenga’s contention that he did not éxplicitly waive.his right to counsel at his final hearing is unavailing, where he was represented by counsel at that hearing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     