
    Cezareo SANCHEZ SOSA; Paz Rosalba Sanchez; Erick Rodolfo Sanchez Crespo; Susana Mayrel Sanchez Crespo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73167.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 16, 2010.
    
    Filed April 5, 2010.
    Meredith R. Brown, Esquire, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
    Dalin Holyoak, Esquire, OIL, Barry J. Pettinato, Esquire, Russell J.E. Verby, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cezareo Sanchez Sosa and Paz Rosalba Sanchez, husband and wife, and then1 adult children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order, and denying their motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and the denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243,1246 (9th Cir.2008) (per curiam). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review and remand.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to remand proceedings to apply for adjustment of status because they failed to establish pri-ma facie eligibility for such relief. See Ochoa-Amaya v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 989, 992-93 (9th Cir.2007).

The IJ abused his discretion in failing to grant petitioners’ motion for a continuance so that they could pursue a U visa application. They submitted appropriate documentation to establish that they were eligible for such relief. See Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1013-14 (9th Cir.2009); see also Ramirez Sanchez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1254, 1255-56 (9th Cir.2007) (per cu-riam). Accordingly, we need not reach petitioners’ due process contention.

Each party shall bear their own costs.

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