
    Francisco Alexander Calderon QUINTANILLA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71724
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 15, 2017
    Javier Lopez-Perez, Esquire, Attorney, Lopez Perez Law Center, Los Angeles, CA, Salomon Zavala, Attorney, Zavala Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, OIL, 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, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, 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

Francisco Alexander Calderon Quintan-illa, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying a continuance, and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. 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 Calderon Quintanilla’s motion for a continuance where he failed to show eligibility for any relief, and it was undisputed that he was ineligible for status adjustment. See Id. at 1247 (no abuse of discretion where no relief was immediately available to the petitioner); 8 C.F.R § 1003.29 (IJ has authority to grant continuance upon showing of good cause).

Calderon Quintanilla failed to raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“an issue referred to in the appellant’s statement of the ease but not discussed in the body of the opening brief is deemed waived.”).

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