
    Luis Francisco GAMEZ CASTELLANOS, AKA Luis Gamez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73089
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 30, 2017
    Bruce C. Wong, GW Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
    Edward C. Durant, Attorney, OIL, John Beadle Holt, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, for Respondent
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges;
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Francisco Gamez Castellanos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the. Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gamez Castellanos failed to provide sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence to establish his continuous residence in the United States since February 13, 2001, which rendered him ineligible for TPS. See 8 U.S.C, § 1254a(c)(l)(A)(ii); Designation of El Salvador Under Temporary Protected Status Program, 66 Fed. Reg. 14, 214 (Mar. 9, 2001).

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Gamez Castellanos’ request for an additional continuance where he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed, 569 F.3d at 1012 (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the reasonableness of the immigrant’s conduct and the number of continuances previously granted).

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