sought to be accorded nonquo-ta status based on a prior fraudulent marriage.”); see also Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 552 (2d Cir.2006) (“Despite [petitioner’s] argument to the contrary, he had no right to the adjudication of a second I-130 petition stemming from a marriage that had already been determined to lack bona fides.”). The finding by the INS that Ms. Eberheart’s prior marriage was a sham was the basis for the INS’ later denial of Seabrook’s spousal visa petition. Ms. Eberheart had over seven years to clear up her visa petition proceedings with the INS, and during that time the immigration court granted multiple continuances. She does not contend that the IJ should have given her yet another one. Cf. Zafar v. United States Att’y Gen., 461 F.3d 1357, 1362 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Instead, she argues that the IJ should not
holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the ijs denial of petitioners motions for continuances to await decisions on their pending requests for labor certifications holding no jurisdiction to review ijs discretionary denial of waiver of inadmissibility despite petitioners cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb