
    Meliton TIRADO-PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70678.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009 
    
    Filed Dec. 8, 2009.
    Claudia Jasmine Lopez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Patrick James Glen, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Meliton Tirado-Pineda, 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”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Tirado-Pineda’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by refusing to continue his immigration proceedings fails because Tirado-Pineda did not establish “good cause” for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation). Tirado-Pineda also has not established that he was prejudiced by the denial of a continuance because nothing in the record shows that he was eligible for a § 212(c) waiver or any other relief from removal. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir.2007).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Tirado-Pineda’s remaining contentions because he failed to properly exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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