With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". according to the facts and circumstances of each case. Ponce-Leiva, 331 F.3d at 377 (quoting Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted)). In this case, the BIA justified its affirmance of the IJ’s decision on the basis that Faustino lacked both an approved visa petition and an approved labor certification, thus he had not established eligibility for adjustment of status. Given Faustino’s failure to offer evidence that he was eligible for an immigrant visa or that one was immediately available to him at the time the application was filed, and that the decision to adjust the status of an alien is ultimately within the discretion of the Attorney General, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of Faustino’s continuance request. Id. at 371 (<HOLDING>); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 233 (4th

A: holding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing a defendants surprise fact witness to testify because the plaintiff did not request a continuance
B: holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion
C: holding the immigration judges denial of a continuance request did not constitute an abuse of discretion
D: holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion
C.