
    Alberto Pablo SORIANO-ARAGON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71636.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 22, 2010.
    
      Curtis F. Pierce, Law Offices of Curtis F. Pierce, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Andrew C. Maclachlan, Kristin A. More-si, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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

Alberto Pablo Soriano-Aragon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Soriano-Aragon’s request for a continuance at his November 29, 2005, hearing because he did not demonstrate good cause where he failed to present evidence that an 1-140 immigrant visa petition was pending with the agency, and where the IJ had granted three prior continuance requests over the four years Sori-ano-Aragon’s case was before the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; cf. Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012-14. As Soriano-Aragon cannot demonstrate error, it follows that his due process claim must fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

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