Maria Lourdes Barbara Flores, a/k/a Maria Lourdes Barbara Fury v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 4th Cir. 1998 . The remaining claims set forth in Flores’…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2019
MARIA LOURDES BARBARA FLORES, a/k/a Maria
Lourdes Barbara Fury,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, United States Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-346-529)
Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: July 2, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jon Eric Garde, LAW OFFICES OF JON ERIC GARDE, Las Vegas, Nevada,
for Appellant. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stacey I. Young, OFFICE
OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Maria Lourdes Barbara Flores, a native and citizen of the
Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) order denying relief from removal. Flores asserts
that the IJ abused her discretion in denying Flores’ motion to
continue for adjudication of an I-130 petition for adjustment of
status.
We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of
discretion in the IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2006); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.
1998). The remaining claims set forth in Flores’ brief were not
raised before the Board of Immigration Appeals. As such, they have
not been administratively exhausted and we lack jurisdiction to
review them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000). With regard to
Flores’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we note that she
has also failed to comply with the requirements of Matter of
Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988).
We accordingly 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

-- 2 of 2 --