
    Felicisima Albiola ESPINOSA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72495.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Aug. 4, 2015.
    Daniel Patrick Hanlon, Eva Leandra Carrasco, Esquire, Hanlon Law Group, a Professional Law Corporation, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regina Byrd, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-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: CANBY, BEA, 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

Felicísima Albiola Espinosa, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We havé jurisdiction under 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. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1248, 1246 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, where Albiola Espinosa had already been given three continuances and she did not show good cause for an additional continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ may grant a motion for a continuance for good cause shown). Albiola Espinosa’s contention that the IJ did not consider all the facts presented is belied by the record.

To the extent Albiola Espinosa is making a due process claim, it therefore fails. See 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).

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