Meliton Tirado-Pineda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dis *893 missing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Tirado-Pineda’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by refusing to continue his immigration proceedings fails because Tirado-Pineda did not establish “good cause” for a continuance. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation). Tirado-Pineda also has not established that he was prejudiced by the denial of a continuance because nothing in the record shows that he was eligible for a § 212(c) waiver or any other relief from removal. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Tirado-Pineda’s remaining contentions because he failed to properly exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.