
    Ismael JIMENEZ-MUNIZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71081
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 4, 2016
    Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
    Jessica Dawgert, Trial Attorney, Sara Bayram, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, 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

Ismael Jimenez-Muniz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order denying his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Jimenez-Muniz’s request for a continuance to await the outcome of the appeal of his conviction, where success on the appeal was speculative and Jimenez-Muniz conceded to the BIA his appeal had been denied. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (outlining factors to consider when reviewing the agency’s denial of a continuance); Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Jimenez-Muniz’s contention that the agency erred in declining to administratively close his proceedings. Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009).

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