With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". filed on Onyeme’s behalf and in declining to remand the matter for a continuance pending resolution of Jacobsen’s third visa petition filed on Onyeme’s behalf; permitting the INS to argue that Onyeme’s marriage to Jacobsen was not legal, despite an IJ’s decision in previous rescission proceedings that Onyeme’s marriage to Jacobsen was legal; and upholding the deportation order where the INS failed to conduct a prompt investigation of the validity of the Nigerian court decree stating that Onyeme was not married in Nigeria. II. Whether to grant a motion to continue deportation proceedings is within the sound discretion of the IJ and is reviewed for abuse of discretion only. See Hassan v. INS, 110 F.3d 490, 492 (7th Cir.1997); see also Bull v. INS, 790 F.2d 869, 871 (11th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, when reviewing the BIA’s

A: holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion
B: holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion
C: holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion
D: holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion
C.