Deeba

MEMORANDUM ***

Farah Deeba, and her children, natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because transitional rules apply, Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for substantial evidence, see Meza-Manay v. INS, 139 F.3d 759, 762 (9th Cir.1998), and we deny the petition for review.

Deeba’s contention that the BIA’s affirmance without opinion of the IJ’s decision fails to comport with the requirements of due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir .2003).

The IJ did not abuse her discretion by denying the continuance because the case was pending for three and half years, the asylum hearing was continued four times to allow Deeba’s husband to testify, and her husband had a history of illness and suffered memory loss. See Rios-Berrios v. INS, 776 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir.1985).

Deeba’s reliance on prior telephone threats, and an incident at her home as evidence of persecution is unavailing.…