
    Benjamin SOLEDAD-BELTRAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-72926.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 24, 2012.
    Steven P. Brazelton, Law Offices of Steven P. Brazelton, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Lisa Damiano, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, 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

Benjamin Soledad-Beltran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Soledad-Beltran’s motion for a continuance to await the processing of a labor certification application he claimed his employer had filed on his behalf where no favorable evidence was excluded as a result of the denial, the application was filed only after he was placed in removal proceedings, and three continuances had previously been granted for this purpose. See id. at 1012-14; see also Sandovah-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243,1247 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (no abuse of discretion in denying continuance pending approval of labor certification application where petitioner’s ultimate eligibility for relief was speculative). Contrary to Sole-dad-Beltran’s contention, the IJ did not improperly deny his motion solely on the basis of case completion goals.

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