
    Maria Guadalupe MENDOZA DE RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72274
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 22, 2017
    Maria Guadalupe Mendoza De Ramirez, Pro Se
    OIL, Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Guadalupe Mendoza de Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying a continuance, denying cancellation of removal, and ordering her removed. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C, § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo due process claims and questions of law. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Mendoza de Ramirez’s request for a continuance for failure to show good cause, where she had been granted several continuances over more than three years and was unable to demonstrate the continuous residence required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Medina-Nunez v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2015) (acceptance into Family Unity Program did not constitute being “admitted” for purposes of cancellation of removal). Accordingly, to the extent Mendoza de Ramirez raises a due process claim, it fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza de Ramirez’s unexhausted contentions regarding mandatory withdrawal of counsel or alleged ineffective assistance of her prior counsel. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     