allows an alien to remain in the United States for a period of time without any defined legal immigration status.” Ukpabi v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 403, 407-08 (6th Cir.2008). Here, the IJ provided Maldonado-Reyes with a five-month continuance to obtain counsel. When Maldonado-Reyes appeared without counsel and requested a further extension of time, he claimed that his boss had retained counsel for him, but counsel had not entered an appearance and Maldonado-Reyes did not know the attorney’s name and could not explain why the attorney was not present for the removal hearing. Under the circumstances, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of Maldonado-Reyes’s request for a further continuance. See Ramirez-Chacon v. Holder, 397 Fed.Appx. 179, 184-85 (6th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Al-Najar v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 708, 717 (6th
holding that where the ij had previously granted continuance requests this reason alone is a sufficient basis to affirm the ij holding the immigration judges denial of a continuance request did not constitute an abuse of discretion holding no abuse of discretion where ij denied aliens request for continuance because alien had no immigrant visa available and it was unlikely attorney general would exercise discretion to permit excludable alien to stay 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 holding that the ij did not abuse his discretion in denying request for further continuance where the ij granted previous request