MEMORANDUM **

Rigoberto Ramirez-Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying a motion to continue. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion |he agency’s denial of a motion to continue, and review de novo constitutional claims. See 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 or violate cjue process in denying Ramirez-Juarez’s motion for a fourth continuance, where the IJ advised him that no further continuances would be granted, and he failed to establish good cause. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown”); Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247; Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Juarez’s unexhausted contention that the agency failed to properly analyze his motion for a fourth continuance. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.