
    Jaime Fabian MEZA-RIVAS, AKA Jaime Mezarivais, AKA Jaime Fabian Mezarivas, AKA Jaime F. Mezrevias, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71882
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 24, 2017
    Jesse Maanao, Attorney, Law Offices of Jeffrey C. Gonzales, Portland, OR, for Petitioner
    Zoe Jaye Heller, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—TJ.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: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jaime Fabian Meza-Rivas, 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”) order denying a continuance and entering an order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo due process claims. 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 or violate due process by denying Meza-Rivas’ motion for a continuance for lack of good cause, where Meza-Rivas had the opportunity to research and incorporate recent developments regarding social group claims, and future changes in the law remained speculative. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause); Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (considering the nature of the evidence excluded and the reasonableness of petitioner’s conduct); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on ... speculations.”); Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).

Meza-Rivas’ motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 20) and supplemental motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 22) are denied as moot.

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