Case Name: Eugene E. MAKUPA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-10
Citations: 494 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 12-1636
Parties: Eugene E. MAKUPA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 494
Pages: 697–698

Head Matter:
Eugene E. MAKUPA, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 12-1636.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 5, 2012.
Filed: Dec. 10, 2012.
Eugene E. Makupa, Wichita, KS, pro se.
Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Kelly J. Walls, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Eugene Makupa, a native and citizen of Tanzania, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which upheld an immigration judge's decision denying his request for a continuance of his removal proceedings and finding him subject to removal. Makupa asserts that the immigration judge should have granted him the requested continuance. After careful review, we conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the immigration judge to deny Makupa the continuance, given that the removal proceedings had already been continued multiple times over a period of more than five years during the pendency of 1-130 petitions filed on his behalf. See Thimran v. Holder, 599 F.3d 841, 845 (8th Cir.2010) (IJ did not abuse discretion in denying alien's request for continuance after second 1-130 petition was denied and case had been continued for over two years). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. We do not consider new evidence that Ma-kupa has presented in this court. See Lukowski v. INS, 279 F.3d 644, 646 (8th Cir.2002) ("judicial review is limited to the administrative record").