
    Gregoria VALLADARES-GOMEZ, Jorge Miranda-Valladares, and Rosa Isabel Gonzalez-Valladares, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72683
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 22, 2018
    Keith Robert Ayers, Telleria, Telleria & Levy, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Friyana Da-dabhoy, CARECEN, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jesse David Lorenz, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gregoria Valladares-Gomez and . her family, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“D ) decision denying them applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and requests for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We deny petitioners’ motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 24). See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (the court’s review is limited to the administrative record).

The IJ did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying petitioners’ requests-for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.” (citations omitted)).

Apart from their arguments related to the denial of a continuance, petitioners do not raise any challenge to the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to these claims.

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ challenges to the BIA’s October 5, 2015, order denying their motion to reconsider and motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, because petitioners did not file a timely petition for review as to that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995) (deadline for filing a petition, for review from a final order of removal is “mandatory and jurisdictional”).

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