Case ID: f-appx_231/html/0283-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Lourdes Barbara FLORES, a/k/a Maria Lourdes Barbara Fury, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-2019.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 30, 2007.
    Decided: July 2, 2007.
    Jon Eric Garde, Law Offices of Jon Eric Garde, Las Vegas, Nevada, for Appellant. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacey I. Young, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Maria Lourdes Barbara Flores, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying relief from removal. Flores asserts that the IJ abused her discretion in denying Flores’ motion to continue for adjudication of an 1-130 petition for adjustment of status.

We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2006); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.1998). The remaining claims set forth in Flores’ brief were not raised before the Board of Immigration Appeals. As such, they have not been administratively exhausted and we lack jurisdiction to review them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000). With regard to Flores’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we note that she has also failed to comply with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988).

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.