or contrary to law. Tipu v. INS, 20 F.3d 580, 582 (3d Cir.1994). Ordinarily, we review only the decision of the BIA, not that of the IJ. Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 548-49 (3d Cir.2001). However, where, as here, the BIA expressly adopts or defers to a finding of the IJ, the Court also reviews those parts of the IJ’s opinion. Id. at 549, n. 2. III. Discussion Faustino contends that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming and adopting the IJ’s decision to deny his Motion for Continuance despite his pending labor certification application. We have said that: the question whether denial of a continuance in an immigration proceeding constitutes an abuse of discretion cannot be decided through the application of bright-line rules; it must be resolved on a case by case ba (<HOLDING>); Oluyemi v. INS, 902 F.2d 1032, 1033-34 (1st
holding the bia did not err in affirming the ijs denial of a continuance request where there was no prima facie approvable visa petition pending and alien had not applied for status adjustment holding appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review bia order affirming ijs denial of asylum because alien did not file petition for review within 30 days of bia order as required by 8 usc  1252b1 holding that continuance of deportation proceedings was not merited where alien had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude such that his visa petition and adjustment of status application were not prima facie approvable holding the district court did not have jurisdiction to review denial of adjustment of status where removal proceedings are pending holding that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the apa to review the denial of an aliens application for adjustment of status where the alien is in removal proceedings