¶2 Vilasid Phichith, a native and citizen of Laos, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a continuance and review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
¶3 The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Phichith’s request for an additional continuance where he did not demonstrate good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009) (factors considered in determining whether the denial of a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion include the nature of the evidence excluded and the number of continuances previously granted).
¶4 Phichith cites no authority to support his contention that the BIA erred in dismissing his appeal from an IJ’s denial of a continuance prior to resolving his motion to reconsider the denial of his visa petition. Cf. Matter of Aurelio, 19 I. & N. Dec. 458, 460 (BIA 1987) (“The proceedings in which visa petitions are adjudicated are separate and apart from exclusion and deportation proceedings.”).
¶5 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.