
    Sergio TARANGO-ROJERO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-75126.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2006.
    
    Filed April 21, 2006.
    Mihail Kantchev, Law Offices of Mihail Kantchev, Van Nuys, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sergio Tarango-Rojero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review constitutional and legal questions de novo. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly determined that Tarango-Rojero knowingly and intelligently waived his statutory right to be represented by counsel of his choice, where the IJ informed Tarango-Rojero of his right to counsel, asked him whether he wanted a continuance, and Tarango-Rojero responded that he wanted to represent himself. See Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.2004).

Even if the IJ gave Tarango-Rojero insufficient time to seek relief from his criminal conviction, Tarango-Rojero’s due process contention fails because he has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by the IJ’s actions. See Halaim v. INS, 358 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir.2004) (holding petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     