                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 3 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KOO SOO KIM,                                    No.    15-71883

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A038-398-983

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before:      SILVERMAN, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

      Koo Soo Kim, a native of South Korea and citizen of Canada, 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



      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
agency’s denial of a continuance. 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

Kim’s request for a 16th continuance, where he failed to establish good cause. See

8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 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 and the number of

continuances previously granted); Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.

2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                         2                                    15-71883
