With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". properly considered the nature of the evidence to be presented, and determined that additional evidence of his mother’s medical condition and testimony regarding diminished educational opportunities in Mexico would not have any bearing on Maduena-Garnica’s hardship claim. See Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir.1988); see also Gonzalez v. INS, 82 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir.1996) (“The decision whether to grant a continuance at a removal hearing is in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be overturned except on a showing of clear abuse.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the IJ did not err in denying Petitioner’s request for a continuance, Maduena-Garnica cannot show that his due process rights were violated. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in

A: holding petitioner must show prejudice to prevail on due process claim
B: holding that an alien must show error and substantial prejudice in order to prevail on a due process claim
C: holding petitioner must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim
D: holding that an alien raising a due process challenge to removal proceedings must show error and substantial prejudice
B.