
    Jose Luis FUENTES, aka Jose Loius Fuentes, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72588.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 25, 2015.
    Jose Luis Fuentes, Bellflower, CA, pro se.
    Tracie Nicole Jones, Tidal, OIL, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, 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

Jose Luis Fuentes, 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 (“U”) decision denying his motion to continue. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Fuentes failed to demonstrate good cause for a continuance, where Fuentes had been previously granted three continuances over 18 months, and he did not meet the IJ’s deadline for filing his applications for relief. See id. at 1247.

We lack jurisdiction to review Fuentes’s unexhausted due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that due process claims, procedural in nature, must be exhausted); Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000) (“We ... require an alien who argues ineffective assistance of counsel to exhaust his administrative remedies by first presenting the issue to the BIA.”).

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