
    Luis RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70059.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 26, 2010.
    John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Trial, Oil, Song Park, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, 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

Luis Ramirez-Rodriguez, 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 de novo questions of law, Morales-Alegna v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir.2006), and due process claims, Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Ramirez-Rodriguez’s contention that a conviction under Cal.Penal Code § 422 does not categorically constitute a crime of violence is foreclosed by Rosales-Rosales v. Ashcroft, 347 F.3d 714, 717 (9th Cir.2003).

Ramirez-Rodriguez’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by refusing to continue his immigration proceedings fails because he did not establish good cause for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Rodriguez’s remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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