removal orders.” Papageorgiou v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 356, 358 (3d Cir.2005) (citing INA § 242(a)(2)(D) [8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) ]). In his petition for review, Blanco Marte suggests that he qualifies nfair hearing and was deprived of his due process right[ ]s pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the [C]onstitution because of the [IJ’s] decision to deny the motion for a continuance.” The Board properly concluded, however, that Blanco Marte never requested a continuance in Immigration Court. The BIA also denied Blanco Marte’s request to stay his appeal “while a New Jersey court considers vacating his convictions,” finding that he failed to demonstrate good cause. To the extent that we have jurisdiction to review this determination, see Ogunfuye v. Holder, 610 F.3d 303, 307 (5th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>), we conclude that the Board did not abuse its
holding this court does not consider issues not supported by propositions of law authority or argument holding that criminal aliens argument that the ij abused its discretion by not granting her a continuance does not present a constitutional claim or issue of law that this court has jurisdiction to consider holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review holding that the court has discretion not to consider an issue abandoned on appeal holding that juvenile court has no jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims