The Honorab l e Amul R. Thapar , United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0350n.06 No. 09-3609 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT EL IAS MOHAMAD HA SSAN DEBEK , Petitioner,

v.
ERI C H. HOL DER, J R., Attorney Gene ral Re sp on de nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETITI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN O R D E R O F T H E BO ARD OF IM M IG RA T IO N A P P E A LS

Before: G ILMAN and WHIT E, Circuit Judges; and T HAP AR, Distr ict Judge. * THAPA R, Distric t Judge. Elias Debe k, a native and citizen of L ebanon, asks us to review
a de c isi on of the B oa rd o f I mmi g ratio n App e a ls a ff ir min g the I mmi g ratio n Jud g e ’s de nia l of his reque st for a c ontinua nce of his removal hea

ring . Be cause denial of the continuance was not an abuse of discretion, we deny

the petition for re view.

I. Elias Debe k (“D ebek” ) was born i n Be irut, L ebanon in 1958. J oint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 41. Fr om 1979 until 2000, Debek lived and wor ked (w ith lega l status) in Saudi A ra b i a. Id. at 121. Debe k and his family

left L ebanon in 1979 to survive the war g oing on a

t that time. Id. at 45. He returne d to L ebanon f

or fifte en to twenty

day s in the s ummer of 2000. Id. a t 12 1. De be k s tate d in“[A]n alien phy sically prese nt in the United States” who is the be nefic iary of “a n application 1 for a labor certification under sec tion 1182(a)( 5)(A) . . . may apply to the Attorney

Gene ral for

the adjustment of his or her

status to that of an al ien lawf ully admitted for pe rmane nt residenc e.” 8 U.S.C. § 1225(i)(1). I f elig ible for a n employ ment-base d adjustme n t o f s t atus , Debe k would not ne e d to a pp ly fo r w ith ho ldi ngof

re mov a l ba se d o n a

ny oth e r gro un ds
. 2 his a sy lum a

pplication that during that visit, Hezbol lah member s tried to rec ruit him. Id. at 45. After he re fu se d to joi n the m, De be k c la ime d that He zbo lla h targ e te d him , a

nd he be c a me a fr a id f

or his safe ty . Id. I n J uly 2000, Debe k trave led to the Unit ed States on a non- immigra nt visit or visa that expired on J uly 4, 2001. Id. a t 18 1. On

Janu ary 10 , 2 00 3, the Un ite d St a te s se rv e d D e be k w itha no tic e to appea r and c harg ed him with removability
. Id. at 185-86. Debe k appea red in fr ont of I mmigration J udg e R obert Newber

ry (“I J ”) on J une 1, 2004, and admitt ed his remova bility
. Id. a t5 9
. T h a td ay, Debek ask ed for

“ a c ou ple of mon ths ” to p ut t og e the r a n a pp lic a tio n f

or wi thh old ingof

re mov a l, Convention Ag ainst To rture ( “CAT”) protec tion, and voluntary depar ture. Id. at 60. When the parties r econve ned on Aug ust 24, 2004, Debe k had filed the application. Id. at 62. Debe k notified the I J tha t he a lso ha d an e mpl oy me nt- ba se d pe tit ion pe nd ing , an d that he co uld so on be e lig ibl e to
a pp ly fo r a n a dju stm e nt o f s tatus . Id. The I J set Debe k’s merits hea ring for Oc tober 2005. Id. at 1 63. At his merits hearing , Debe k’s attorne y noted that he ha d filed for a continuance , which the I J had alr eady

denied. Id. a t 69 -7 0. De be k’ s r e qu e st w a s to po stp on e the he ari ngun til his employ ment-base d petition wa s adjudicate d. See Supplemental Appendix (“S.A.” ) at 207-09. The I J expressed conc ern ove r gr a nti n g a continuanc e, since there was no guara ntee De bek’s e mploy

ment pe tit ion wo uld e ve r b e a pp rov ed. J.A. a t 70 -7 1. De be k’ s atto rn e y pr op os e d th a t if

the I J wou ld continue the mer its hearing , in r eturn De bek would withdra w his asylum application. Id. at 71.3

De be k a nd his c ouns e l be lie ve d th a t De be k’ s e mpl oy me nt a pp lic a tio n w ou ld b e a

pp ro ve d b y

July or August of 2006, and that he c ould apply for a n adjustment of status at that time. Id. at 76-78. The g overnme nt a

nd the I J ag ree d to the deal, with the added condition that if t h e e m p l o y m ent applicati o n was not appr oved bef ore the next hearing , Debe k would voluntarily depar t the United States. Id. a t 76 -7 9. Af

te r De be k c on su lte d his lawye r outsi de of the c ourt ro om, the I J sp ok e wi th Debe k to ensure that he under stood the terms of the de al. Id. at 7 9 -8 5
. T h e I J l ai d o u tt h e f o l l o wi n g: [Y] ou would seek no f

urther de lay s from [August 2006], that you would withdraw y our application for wit hholding and its relief of asylum that might be viewe d as par t of that application, not only as it now exist s, but any ap p l i ca t i o n fore ver that y ou might have based on a sy lum a nd withholding, that if y our application for adjustment was not ripe for a decision by this Court y ou would be g iven the cha nce of applying fo r v o l u n t ary

depar ture a nd the Court would g rant you the 60 day s voluntary depar ture, a ssuming that y ou could meet a ll o f the statutory and re g ulatory require ments. Id. at 84. Debe k ag ree d and the pa rties adjourne d until August 4, 2006. Id. at 79, 87-89. On July 21 , 2 00 6, De be k fi le d wh a t th e I J ca lle d a me mor and

um o f c ha ng e d c ir c ums tanc e s. Id. at 92. At the Aug ust 4, 2006, hear ing, D ebek inf ormed the I J that he wa s still not eligible f or an adjustment of st at u s
—

but that he no long er w ished to voluntarily depar t. Id. He a sked for

y et another continuance to prepa

re a new asy lum application. Id. at 103-04. De bek cla imed that he had been pr epar ed t o l ea v e the United States voluntarily , pursuant to the ter ms of the Octobe r 2005 ag ree ment, but I srae l a

nd Hezbollah wer e now in a violent c onflict. Id. at 110-11. He f ear ed that he may not have a

home to return to i n Be i rut. Id. at 114. Debe k stated he w as af raid that if he returne d to L ebanon, one of the plane s might bomb him an d h i s family
. Id. a t 11 7. He wa s a lso
a fr a id o f H e zbo lla

h, a lth ou g h h e state d that he had never de a lt w iththe m be c a

us e he ha d b e e n in Saudi Arabia
. Id. at 115. When asked why he fe are d them, he re fer

red to the ong oing c onflict and4

sa id: “ [b]e c a

us e Iam a re sid e nt of the su

burb of B e ir ut a nd wh e re a m I

to g o li ve , in

a sc ho ol o r i n a hospital? ” Id. at 117. The I J denied Debe k’s motion for continuance and order ed his r emoval. Id. at 36-37; 124. The I J did not believe that De bek should have reneg ed on the Oc tober 2005 a g ree ment and found Debe k’s testimony

incre dible. Id. at 32-35. The I J also focuse d heavily on the fa ct that Debe k stated in his 2004 asylum application that Hezbollah had tried to recr uit him, id. at 35, while at the he aring he said he had neve r dea l t wi th Hezbollah, id. at 115. He note d that if Debe k had bee n pursuing voluntary depar ture, a s he cla imed, he would already have travel documents and could depar t to a country other than L ebanon. Id. at 36-37. Debe k appea led the I J decision to the B oard of I mmigration Appeals (“ BIA”) . S.A. at 195- 205. The B I A noted that befo re granting a c ontinuance to pur sue re lief, the a g ency considers
w h e t h e r ana l i e nc anm ak e o u t a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f e l i g i b i l i t y f

o r t h a t r e l i e f

. J
. A
. a t1 6
. T h e B IA aff irmed t he I J ’s findi ng that Debe k was incr edible. Id. a t 16 -1 7. I t f ur the r f ou nd that D e be k c ou ld not establish a prima fac ie claim for asy lum based on g ener alized fea rs. Id. at 17. The B I A’s denia l of De bek’s a

ppeal be came the final de cision of the ag ency , which is what we revie w her e. Kha lil i v. Holder , 5 5 7 F. 3 d

4 2 9 , 4 3 5 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Morgan v. Keisler , 5 07 F .3 d 1 05 3, 10 57 (6 th Cir. 2007)). II. Debe k asks t hat we g rant his petition and reve rse the B I A’s dec ision for sever al re asons. He
c on te sts the c re dib ili ty

fi nd ing , and argue s that he sh ou ld have be e n g ive n a n o pp or tun ity to e xpla in the discre pancie s in his testi mony . Pet. Br. at 21-25. He contends that his testimony and evide nce
me e t th e p r im a f

a c ie b u r d e n f

o r a s y lum r e lie f. Id. a t 2 9
- 3 3
. F u rt h e r , D e b e k a l l e g e s t h a tt h e IJTh e B I A foll ows it s own int e rn a l r e g ulatio ns and I Js fo llo w b ind ingB I A d e c isi on s. 2 Aburto-Rocha v . Mukase

y , 535 F.3d 500, 503 ( 6th Cir. 2008).

5 c oe rc e d h im i nto wi thd

ra wi nghis asy lum pe tit ion

and in d oin g so vio late d h is d ue pr oc e ss r ig hts
. Id. at 18-19. F inally , he ar g ues that the I J and BIA should have g rante d him a continuance to file a new pe tition based on L ebanon’ s drastica lly chang ed conditions that occ urre d afte r De be k’ s d e a l to withdraw his asy

lum petition. Id. For

the re asons explained below, these arguments fail. A. T h e IJ h a s t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o g r an ta c o n t i nu an c e f

o r g o o d c a u s e . 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 9
. T h e IJ should ex erc i s e t h at discretion fa vorably when “ a prima f

acie approva

ble visa petition and adj u stment application have been submitted in the cour se of a n ong oing r emoval hea

ring .” In re Hashmi , 24 I . & N . Dec . 785, 790 (B I A 2009). We reviewthe B I A’s af firmanc e of the I J ’s denial 2 of Debe k’s motion for continuance under the abuse- of-discr etion standard. Ilic-Leev. Muk asey , 507 F.3d 1044, 1047 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Debe k did not show prima fac ie elig ibilit y for a sy lum. To show eligibility for a sy lum, Debek must demonstrate an unw illingness to re turn to his home country “bec ause of

perse cution or a well-founde d fea

r of pe rsec ution on account of rac e, relig ion, nationality , membership in a pa rticular social g roup, or political opinion . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (42)( A). Debe k’s testimony

was his only

parti culariz ed evide nce of a we ll-founded f

ear of perse cution; thus it follows that if he wa s not credible, he could not show prima fa cie e ligibility for asylum. J .A. at 16-17. Sepa rate from the a dverse cre dibilit y finding , the B I A also cor

rec tly held that
e ve n if De be k’ s te sti mony

we re c re dib le , h is f

e ar o f r e tur

nin g to L e ba

no n wa s to o g e ne ra lize d to
m eet the standard f

or asylum relief. Id. a t 17 ; se e Ha rc he nk o v . I NS , 3 7 9 F
. 3 d

4 0 5 , 4 1 0 ( 6 th

Cir.6

2004). Ultimately , beca

use of both of these finding s, the I J , and in tur n the BIA, proper ly

deter mined that Debe k was not entitled to a c ontinuance. 1. Cre dib ility Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding t h at De b ek was not cr edible. See B en Hamida v. Gonzale

s , 4 7 8 F. 3 d

7 3 4 , 7 3 6 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Y u v . A sh c ro

ft , 364 F.3d 700, 703, 70 3 n .2 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) ) ( ho ldi ngthat we re vie w a thr e sh old c re dib ili ty fi nd ing un de r the su bs tanti a le vid e nc e sta

nd ard ). Al tho ug h “ min or and ir re le va nt inc on sis te nc ie s” c ann ot su pp ort an adve rs e
cre dibilit y

finding , we will uphold s u ch a fi nding if the testimony

“plausibly

could be view ed as incre dible.” Sy lla v . I

NS , 38 8 F .3 d 92 4, 92 6 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 4) (c itatio ns omi tte d) ; Pi lic a v . A sh c ro ft , 3 8 8 F
. 3 d 9 4 1 , 9 5 4 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. T h e B IA f o c u s e d o na c r i t i c a l d i s c r e p an c y i nD e b e k ’ s t e s t i m o n y: at his Aug ust 2006 hearingDebe k testified that he ha d never dealt with Hezbol lah, y et i n his 2004
a s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o nh e s t a t e d

t h a tt h e g r o u

p t r i e d t o r e c r u i th i mi n2 0 0 0
. B o t ht h e IJ an d t h e B IA fo un d th is c on tr a dic tio n s ig nif ic ant a nd c e ntr a l to De be k’ s c la im. J .A. at 17 . Thi s is be c a us e if Debe k could not explain his fea r of returning to L ebanon, his asy lum claim must fail. I n addition, thi s r e c ru itm e nt e ff

or t putativ e ly

oc c ur re d d ur ingDe be k’ s on ly tw o we e ks in L e ba no n (i n 2 00 0) in a span of more than thirty

y ear s. Debe k argues that the I J should have provide d him the opportunity to re co n ci l e the discrepa ncies in his testimony . Pet. B r. at 21-22, 24. He contends in his petition, a s he did bef ore the BI A , th a t h is s tate me n t t h a t h e h a d

n o th in g to d o w it

hH e zb o ll ahd id

n o t c o n tr a d ic t h is e ar li er state me nts a

bo ut H e zbo lla

h’ s atte mpt e d r e c ru itm e nt. Since he r e je c te d th e ir

re c ru itm e nt e ff

or ts, Debe k explains, he had nothing to do with them. Id. a t2 1 ; S
. A
. a t2 0 2
. W e c an n o ts ay t h a tt h e B IA
err ed in r ejec ting this e x planation, beca use De bek ca

nnot show his ex planation c om pe ls a re a so na ble7

adjudicator

to find his testim ony

cre dible. Yu , 364 F.3d at 702 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)( B) ). Thus, Debe k’s argument that the I J should have g iven him an opportunity to expl ain his inconsistent te sti mony fa ils
. 2. F ailure to Show Reasonable F ear of P erse cution The BI A also addressed De bek’s f ailure to show a

particula rized fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. J.A. a t 17 . T o pr ov e e lig ibi lity fo r a sylum , D e be k w ou ld h a ve to s ho w “ fe ar o f p e rs e c uti on [ ] both subjectively

g enuine a

nd objectively

rea sonable.” Lumaj v. Gonzales , 462 F.3d 574, 578 ( 6th Cir. 2004). An alien’s proof of past perse cution cre ates a presumption that he has a well-founde d fea

r of suffe ring future pe rsec ution. See 8 C. F .R. § 2 08 .1 3( b) (1 ); Pablo-Sanche z v. Holder , 600 F.3d 592, 594 (6th Cir. 2010). B ut Debek c oncede s that there was no past perse cution here
. Pet. Br. at 19. There fore , there was no presumption that Debe k’s fe ar of future pe rsec ution was well-f ounded. He c onsequently

would need to show the basis for his fe ar w ith other evidenc e. To show a we ll-founded f ear of future perse cution, “an a pplicant ca

nnot rely on speculative
c on c lus ion s o r m e re a sse rt ion s o f f e ar o f p os sib le pe rs e c uti on , b ut i ns te a d mu st o ff e r r e a so na

bly
s p ecif ic information showinga re al threat of individual persec ution.” M a p o u y a v . G o n zales , 487 F.3d 396, 412 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (interna l c itations a nd quotation ma

rks omitted). Acc epting Debe k’s testimony as cr edible, we are left wit h two possible g rounds for an asy lum claim. First, base d on the hear ing, D ebek fea

red the conflict in L ebanon. The BIA corr ectly points out t hat “r andom ac ts of
v i o l en ce d u ri n g a period of strife g ener ally do not c onstitut e perse cution
. . . .” J .A. at 17. A g ener alized fea

r duringong oing c onflict is insufficient to establish the individualized fear require d for a sy lum, withholdi ng , and prote ction from torture
. H a r c h e n ko , 37 9 F.3d a

t 41 0. B a se d o n h is testimony , Debe k fea

red the dang ers of

the conf lict in L ebanon like anyone living the re w ould. He8

submits documentation of the dang erous c onditions i n his home country throug h news a

rticles and a State De partment Repor t. J .A. at 128-79. H e explained his f ear at the hear ing: “I

am a r esident of the suburb of

Be irut and whe re a

m Ito go live, in a

school or in a h o s p i t al ? ” Id. a t 17 . T he se g ener al fe ars do not mee t the g rounds for a sy lum. See Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 743, 750 (6 th Cir
. 20 06 ) (“ [F ]ea

rs of re tur nin g to t he Wes t B ank

—s ho oti ng s, sh e lli ng s, bo mbi ng s, se ttl e rs ’ attacks, la ck of infr astructur e, and la ck of acc ess to me dical car e—ar e base d on the exist ence of a g e ne ra lize d o r r and om p os sib ili ty of pe rs e cut io n in [he r] n a tiv e c ountr y , w hic h is g e ne ra lly insufficient to establish per secution.”)
. Second, in his asylum application, Debek st ated that he feare d Hezbollah beca use they tried to r ecr uit him in the past; he argues that his political opinion of being anti-He zboll ah i s p ro t ecte d g rounds for a sy lum. Pet Br. at 30-31. Her e Debe k also fails to prove a particula rized fea r of f uture perse cution. Debe k argues that he ne ed not prove t h at he would be single d out by Hezbollah, but instead he c an show that “ there is a pattern or prac tice in his or her country . . . of per secution of a g r o u p o f p e r s o n s s i m i l ar l y

s i tu a t e d t o t h e a p p l i c an to n

a c c o u n to f

r a c e , r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y, membership in a pa

rticular soc ial g roup, o r p o l i t i cal opinion.” See id. at 28 (c iting 8 C.F.R. § 12 08 .1 3( b) ). Al tho ug h De be k is cor re c t tha t an a lie n c an s ho w a patte rn of pe rs e c uti on , h e mus t a lso prove “ his or her ow n i nclusion in, and identification with, such g roup of pe rsons such that his or her f ear of per secution upon re turn is rea sonable.” 8 C.F.R.§ 1208.13(b)( 2)(iii)(B ). We have he ld that imputed polit ical o p inion can be grounds for a sy lum protection. A b d u ln o o r v . As hc ro

ft , 107 F. App’ x 594, 595 (6th Cir. 2004). B ut in Abdulnoor , the evidenc e sh ow e d th a t th e I ra qi g ov e rnme nt b e lie ve d th e pe tit ion e r ha d be e n plot tin g a c ou p; it issu e d a

de a th sentenc e ag ainst him. Id. In contra st, Debe k does not offe r any evidenc e beyond his brief intera ction9

with Hezbollah in 2000 to show that he is part of a persecute d g roup. Thus, we uphold the BIA’s de t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t D e b e k d i d n o t s h o w p r i m a f a c i e e l i g i b i l i t y f

o r a s yl u m . T h e B I A d i d n o ta bu se its dis c re tio n w he n it

de nie d h is m oti on

to c on tin ue se e kin gto f

ile su c h a c la im. Debe k also argues that the c hang ed cir cumstance s i n L eb an on g ave him ca use to file an asylum application in J une 2006, ev en t h o ug h the one- y ear deadline to f

ile for a sy lum relief ha d passed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (4)( ii). Be cause the continuanc e wa s not denied base d on the oney ear deadline, D ebek’ s chang ed cir cumstance has no bea ring on the re sult here. De be k’ s c on tin

ua nc e re qu e st w a s n ot l imi te d to h is a sylum a pp lic a tio n. He a lso so ug ht a continuance for his pe nding applications for withholding of remova l a nd CAT protec t i o n . S i n ce Debe k cannot e stablish a prima fa cie c ase f or asy lum, t h e l ea st stringe nt of all three reme dies, he
nece ssarily

cann ot show elig ibilit y

for withholding of re moval or CAT protec tion. Hassan v. Gonzales , 4 0 3 F. 3 d

4 2 9 , 4 3 5 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Pilica , 388 F.3d at 955). B. Debe k argues that his case should be rema nded bec ause his due proce ss r ights wer e violated. He maintains that the I J and the gove rnment coerce d him into wit hdraw ing his a sy lum petition and that he wa s d e nie d a

fa ir he ari ng . Pe t. B r. a t 18 -2 1. Ho we ve r, De be k did no t ra ise the se argume nts to the BIA. See S.A . at 196 -2 05
. He no tif ie d the B IA o f h is p e rc e ive d d isc ri min a tio n a nd ho sti lity fr om t he I J, but did no t a sse rt c oe rc ion and du e pr oc e ss vio latio ns . T his Cou rt la c ks jur isd ic tio n to revie w any issues that have not been r aised a nd administratively

exhausted below. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )( 1) ; Ra mani v . A sh c ro ft , 3 78 F .3 d 5 54 , 5 58 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) . T hu s, De be k’ s d ue pr oc e ss
c la ims are no t pr op e rl y

be fo re us .10

Even if we wer e to consider his arguments on the merits, they wo u l d fail. To show a due proce ss violation, Debek would have to demo n s t ra t e t h at (1) there w as a de fec t in the removal proce eding ; and (2) the defe ct was pr ejudicial. See Ndrec aj v. Muk asey , 522 F.3d 667, 673 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Vasha v. Gonzales , 410 F.3d 863, 872 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). Debe k asser

ts that his due proce ss rig hts were violated bec ause the I J and g overnme nt
a tto rn e y s c oe rc e d h im i nto makin g the Oc tob e r 2 00 5 d e a l to wi thd ra w h is r e mov a l pe tit ion

wi th pr e jud ic e . Pe t. B r. a t 18 -1 9. We l e ave fo r a no the r da y the qu e sti on wh e the r an a lie n’ s du e pr oc e ss
r i g h t s ar e v i o l a t e d

w h e r e h e a g r e e s i na

r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g t o c o n c e d e s o m e t y p e o f r e l i e f
. T h e B IA did not bas e it s d e n ia l o f th e c o n ti nu an c e o nD e b e k ’ s a g r e e me n t t o w it h dr aw h is 2 0 0 4 a s y lum application. See J .A. at 15-17. I nstead, the BIA focuse d on the likelihood that Debek c ould succe ed
on the me ri ts o f a

ne wl y fi le d a sylum

pe tit ion and , as disc us se d a bo ve , c on c lud e d h e c ou ld n ot. There fore , since the ag ree ment did not aff ect the outcome of his case , Debe k was not pre judiced. Additionally , Debe k repe atedly asser ts that “ [d] ue proce ss dic tates that an alien must have
a fu ll a nd fa ir he ari ngon

his a pp lic a tio ns fo r r e lie f” and that th e I J and

B I A r e fu se d to a llo w h im t o apply for t he re lief to which he is entitled. Id. at 20-21. This ar g ument also fails. De bek had the opportunity

to apply for asylum, withholding , and CAT relief
. The I J had alr eady

g rante d Debe k one continuance to wait for a

n employ ment visa. Debe k’s August 2006 hearinghad bee n set for e ight months so that Debek could pr epar e for a vol u n t ary

depar ture or obta in an employ

ment visa. An
a lie n mu st h ave a

fu ll a nd fa ir he ari ng on his a

pp lic a tio ns fo r re lie f, but he is n ot e nti tle d to inf ini te revisions of that application and opportunities to delay resolution of his case
. El Harake v . Gonzales , 2 1 0 F. App’ x 482, 490 n.15 (6th Cir. 2006) (“ I t cannot be the case that any time an alien f

iles an I -4 85 pe tit ion or ha s an I -1 30 pe tit ion fi le d o n h is b e ha lf

, th e I J is required to gr ant a c ontinuance.11

Such a vieww o u ld

c o n f li c t w it h th e d is c r e ti o nth a t t

h e r e g u lati o n s e xp li c it ly

p r o v id e to th e I J .”). The a g ency i s wi t h i n i t s power s to deny continuance s even thoug h other pe titions for r elief a re p e nding. S

ee id. a t 48 9- 90 ; Ilic-Lee , 5 07 F .3 d at 10 47 -4 8. Th e de nia l on its ow n d id n ot v iol a te Debe k’s rig hts. Since the B I A ac ted within its di scre tion and Debe k cann o t s h o w that he suff ere d any pr e jud ic e , h is d

ue pr oc e ss c la im s wou ld fa il o n th e me ri ts. Mo re ov e r, be c a us e De be k f

a ile d to exhaust his claims, we lack jurisdiction to revie w t hem and must deny this portion of hi s petition. III
. For these re asons, we de ny

the petition for re view.