
    Pedro Enrique Munoz BONILLA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74045
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 19, 2017
    Carlos Alfredo Cruz, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Carlos A. Cruz, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner
    OIL, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pedro Enrique Munoz Bonilla, 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”) decision denying his motion for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a continuance, and we review de novo due process claims. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying Munoz Bonilla’s motion for a third continuance, where he failed to file any applications for relief from removal after the IJ had warned him of the consequences of such failure, and he failed to establish good 'cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247; Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

The record does not support Munoz Bonilla’s contention that the agency failed to consider contentions or provide sufficient reasoning. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     