
    SYED MUEED ALAM, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60331.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 10, 2006.
    Sarfraz Aftab Sharif, Sharif & Associates, Yvonne Francoise Koopman, M. Ali Zakaria & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Amy Ruth Gillespie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Syed Mueed Alam appeals the affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of a motion for continuance of the hearing on Alam’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. He contends that his procedural due process rights to a full and fair hearing were violated because Attorney Sharif was unfamiliar with the facts of the case and, therefore, unable to develop Alam’s testimony and because Alam himself was ill on the date of the hearing.

This court reviews the BIA’s affirmance of an Id’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. Witter v. INS, 113 F.3d 549, 555-56 (5th Cir.1997). An IJ may grant a continuance upon a showing of good cause. Id.

Alam’s motion for a continuance based on either Attorney Zakaria’s illness or Alam’s “condition” lacked good cause. Alam had already been granted three continuances. See Bright v. INS, 837 F.2d 1330, 1332 (5th Cir.1988). Moreover, Alam’s attorney of record, Ramji, was present at the hearing. See Patel v. INS, 803 F.2d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir.1986). Thus, the IJ did not err when it denied the continuance, and Alam’s claim, framed as a due process violation, fails. See Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678, 680-81 (5th Cir.2006).

Accordingly, Alam’s petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     