
    Martin CORREA, aka Martin Correa Caballero, aka Martin Rosalio Correa, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72546
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 03, 2016
    Marc Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges..
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Correa, 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”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

We reject Correa’s due process claim that his merits hearing was scheduled too close to the master calendar hearing, and as a result he had inadequate time to submit more evidence of the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal. Cor-rea’s attorney did not object to the scheduling of the merits hearing date or request a continuance to gather additional evidence, and he has not established any resulting prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). Correa does not raise any other challenge to the agency’s discretionary determination that he failed to show the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative for cancellation of removal. Thus we do not consider Correa’s contentions regarding good moral character because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court need not reach a contention when another dispositive determination has been made).

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying for lack of good cause Correa’s request for a continuance to await the promulgation of a regulation that might have benefitted him. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[An] IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on ... speculations.”).

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