SUMMARY ORDER
Petitioner Jorge Alberto Carrillo-Palen-cia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of a November 28, 2014 decision of the BIA affirming the March 18, 2014 decision of an Immigration Judge (“I J”) denying his motion for a continuance and ordering him removed. In re Jorge Alberto Carrillo-Palencia, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 28, 2014), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Hartford Mar. 13, 2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both.the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir.2006). We review the agency’s denial of a continuance “under a highly deferential standard of abuse of discretion.” Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551 (2d Cir.2006). An IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, and abuses his or her discretion only if his or her “decision rests on an error of law (such as application of the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual finding or ... cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions,” Morgan, 445 F.3d at 551-52 (quoting Zervos v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 252 F.3d 163, 169 (2d Cir.2001)).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Carrillo-Palencia’s request for a fifth continuance of his removal proceedings. Even assuming that Carrillo-Palen-cia’s conviction was not final for immigration purposes, a favorable outcome on his criminal appeal would not have changed the outcome of his removal proceedings. His removability was based on his unlawful *10presence (not his conviction), and he abandoned his only requested relief from removal by failing to timely file his application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c). Under these circumstances, the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance. See Elbahja v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 125, 129. (2d Cir.2007) (concluding that an IJ did not abuse his or her discretion by denying a continuance sought to pursue relief that was “speculative at best”); see also Morgan, 445 F.3d at 551-52.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.