
    Carlos MARTINEZ-NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74230.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2016.
    
    Filed April 18, 2016.
    T. Anthony Guajardo, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for. Petitioner.
    Carlos Martinez-Navarro, pro se.
    Rachel Louise Browning, Trial, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, 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

Carlos Martinez-Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) removal order 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 motion for a continuance, and review de novo claims of due process violations. 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 Martinez-Navarro’s motion for a further continuance to seek post-conviction relief where Martinez-Navarro failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown). Martinez-Navarro conceded removability, he had been granted three prior continuances, and post-conviction relief remained a speculative possibility at the time of his final hearing. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (the denial of a continuance was within the agency’s discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir.2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance' based on ... speculations.”).

To the extent Martinez-Navarro contends that the denial of a continuance violated due process by preventing him from pursuing post-conviction relief, his claim, fails because he has not established error or prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).

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