
    Morakinyo Ayodele OBE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-1888.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 22, 2006.
    Decided: April 26, 2006.
    Hakeem Ishola, Ishola Law Firm, P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Erie W. Marsteller, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(e).

PER CURIAM:

Morakinyo Ayodele Obe, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s order denying Obe a continuance and proceeding with a hearing to determine whether Obe, proceeding pro se, was eligible for voluntary departure. The decision to grant or deny a continuance “is within the sound discretion of the immigration judge and is reviewed for abuse of discretion only.” Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.1998). When reviewing the Board’s decision upholding an immigration judge’s continuance ruling, we will “uphold the [Boardj’s decision unless it was made without a rational explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies, or it rested on an impermissible basis, e.g., invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the record and finding no such improprieties, we uphold the Board’s decision.

Obe also asserts that he was denied due process of law in the proceedings below. In order to receive relief on a due process claim, Obe must establish that a violation occurred and show prejudice. Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir.2002). Prejudice means that Obe’s rights were violated in a way that was likely to affect the results of his proceeding. Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 484 (4th Cir.2006). Because Obe fails to make such a showing, this claim entitles him to no relief.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED.  