
    Rebecca LOPEZ-VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71898.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
    T. Anthony Guajardo, T. Anthony Gua-jardo, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    OIL, DÓJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Claire Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rebecca Lopez-Valdez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to continue, and review de novo due process claims and questions of law. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.2008). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847, 850-51 (9th Cir.2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez-Valdez’s challenges to her two 2001 expedited removal orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2); Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (9th Cir.2008) (noting that “[sjection 1252(e) only permits review of expedited removal orders in a habeas corpus petition”).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Valdez’s 2001 expedited removal orders prevented her from establishing the ten years of continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir.2007) (expedited removal interrupts an alien’s continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes).

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a second continuance where Lopez-Valdez did not show good cause for an additional continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown).

Lopez-Valdez has failed to establish a due process violation resulting from her alleged inability to collaterally attack her expedited orders of removal before the IJ. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(C); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).

Finally, we deny Lopez-Valdez’s motion to stay voluntary departure and removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i); Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir.2011) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     