[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 12606 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A089

- 569

- 047 BOMA LAWRENCE EKIYOR,
Petitioner ,

versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

.

___________ _____________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________ ( January 6, 2017 )
Before WILSON , JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Boma Ekiyor aske d the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA ) to continue his removal proceedings while he applied to the United States Citizenship and2 Immigration Services (USCIS) for a waiver of the conditional basis of his permanent resid ent status . The BIA declined to grant Ekiyor a continuance and
affirmed an Immi gration Judge’s (IJ) order of removal . Ekiyor petitions for review of the BIA’s decision, arguing that the BIA abused its discretion in disposing of his request for a continuance

. 1 After careful review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we deny Ekiyo r’s petition.
I
We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s refusal to grant Ekiyor a
continuance. See Merchant v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 461 F.3d 1375, 1377 (11th Cir. 2006). A continuance may be provided in a removal proceeding if “good cause [is]
shown.” See Chacku v. U.S. Att ’y Gen. , 555 F.3d 1281, 1285 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) ( internal quotation marks omitted ).
II Ekiyor was granted conditional permanent resident status after marrying a
United States citizen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a)(1) (2013) (“[A] n alien spouse

. . . shall be considered, at the time of obtaining the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to have obtained such status on a conditional basis . . . .”). However, the USCIS ultimately found that Ekiyor’s mar riage is not a “ proper

1 In his brief, Ekiyor solely asserts that the BIA erred in not granting him a continuance

. He has abandoned all other issues that were before the BIA

. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. , 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).3 marriage” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) , s ee id. § 1186a(d)(1) , and the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Ekiyor , s ee id. § 1186a (c)(3)(C)

. An IJ agreed with the USCIS’s finding and ordered removal of Ekiyor. Ekiyor appealed to the BIA. In his brief to the BIA, h e requested a
continuance to allow him to pursue a waiver application with USCIS based on extreme hardship. Upon proof of “extreme hardship, ” USCIS can waive “ the
cond itional basis of the permanent r esident status for an alien who” fails to show
that his marriage is proper under the INA

. Id. § 1186a(c)(4). The BIA construed
Ek i y or’s request for a continuance as a motion to remand to the IJ and denied the request, find ing that Ekiyor did “not provide[] any evidence to establish his eligibility for” relief based on hardship. The BIA then affirmed the IJ’ s decision.
III
T he BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Ekiyor a
continuance. Ekiyor failed to show good cause for a continu ance
. The record is
bereft of any allegations or evidence suggesting that Ekiyor might be eligible for a hardship waiver. Ekiyor appended his waiver application to his BIA brief, and on the application, he checked a box stati ng that his removal would cause extreme hardship . However, the application did not include any allegations or evidence supporting Ekiyor’s hardship claim . Ekiyor’s BIA brief likewise i ncluded only a4 cursory assertion that removal would cause Ekiyor hards hip. Ekiyor th erefore made no showing that a continuance based on his waiver application was appropriate , and the BIA acted within its discretion in declining to grant him a
continuance. 2 See Zafar v. U.S. Att’y Gen. , 461 F.3d 1357, 1363

– 64 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that IJ s properly denied continuance s to petitioner s who offered merely “the speculative possibility that at some point in the future” t he y would be eligible for relief from removal).
PETITION DENIED.

2 In addition to generally challenging the BIA’s refusal to grant him a continuance, Ekiyor appears to assert that the BIA abused its discretion in construing his request for a continuance as a motion to remand

. But Ekiyor only briefly raises this argument and offers no case law in support thereof.