FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUL 29 2015

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


SALVADOR RAMIREZ-DIAZ,                           No. 13-72091

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A079-649-733

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

               Respondent.


                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted July 21, 2015**

Before:        CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

      Salvador Ramirez-Diaz, 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 denial of his request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a


          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
continuance, and review de novo claims of due process violations. Sandoval-Luna

v. Mukasey, 

, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

      The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Diaz’s request

for a further continuance because he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 

, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors

considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse

of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded as a result of the denial).

      Accordingly, Ramirez-Diaz’s claim that he was denied a full and fair hearing

and deprived of his statutory right to counsel must fail. Lata v. INS, 

, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due

process claim).

      We reject Ramirez-Diaz’s contention that the BIA’s decision was

insufficient, where the agency invoked the applicable “good cause” legal standard

and cited pertinent legal authorities. Najmabadi v. Holder, 

, 990 (9th

Cir. 2010) (agency need not “write an exegesis on every contention”).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                           2                                    13-72091