MEMORANDUM
Carlos Martinez-Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) removal order denying his request for a continuance. We“ have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a continuance, and review de novo claims of due process violations. 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 in denying Martinez-Navarro’s motion for a further continuance to seek post-conviction relief where Martinez-Navarro failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown). Martinez-Navarro conceded removability, he had been granted three prior continuances, and post-conviction relief remained a speculative possibility at the time of his final hearing. See Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (the denial of a continuance was within the agency’s discretion where relief was not immediately available to petitioner); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1274 (9th Cir.2011) (“[T]he IJ [is] not required to grant a continuance based on ... speculations.”).
To the extent Martinez-Navarro contends that the denial of a continuance violated due process by preventing him from pursuing post-conviction relief, his claim, fails because he has not established error or prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.