
    Jesus HERNANDEZ-ANDRADE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70452.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 10, 2011.
    Elsa Ines Martinez, Esquire, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    David Nicholas Harling, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Xavier Rosas, Law Offices of Elsa Martinez, PLC, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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

Jesus Hernandez-Andrade, 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 under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir.2004), and review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.

Contrary to Hernandez-Andrade’s contention, his conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) is categorically a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). See Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1083-1086 (9th Cir.2010).

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance where Hernandez-Andrade did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (IJ may grant motion for a continuance for good cause shown); Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 92-93 (9th Cir.1988). It follows that Hernandez-Andrade’s due process challenge fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

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