
    Ramon Neon CRUZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-73960.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed April 6, 2009.
    Rosaura D. Rodriguez, Esq., Rios Cantor, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-Distriet Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., Kristin K. Edison, Esq., Jason X. Hamilton, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ramon Neon Cruz-Garcia, 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”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying a continuance where Cruz-Garcia failed to establish that he was eligible for relief or good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown); see also Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (IJ’s denial of an additional continuance was within discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner). Cruz-Garcia has not established a due process violation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

The agency did not err in concluding that Cruz-Garcia was ineligible for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229e(b)(3).

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