
    Francisco Daniel RIVAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 16-72648
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 27, 2017
    Francisco Daniel Rivas, Pro Se
    Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, 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: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Daniel Rivas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The court lacks jurisdiction to consider Rivas’ contentions regarding the merits of his claims because he did not raise them to the agency. Nee Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

We lack jurisdiction' to review Rivas’ unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must first be presented to the BIA).

The agency did not abuse its discretion by denying Rivas’ third request for a continuance because he failed to show good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247 (finding the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for a continuance).

We do not consider the materials Rivas attached to his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

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