Sotamba v. Barr

17-4158 Sotamba v. Barr BIA Straus, IJ A208 484 626 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 9th day of July, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ WILSON F. SOTAMBA, AKA OSCAR CRIOLLO-VAZQUES, Petitioner, v. 17-4158 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: Kevin R. Murphy, Law Office of Kevin R. Murphy, Springfield, MA. FOR RESPONDENT: Andrea N. Gevas, Trial Attorney (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Wilson F. Sotamba, a native and citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of a December 6, 2017 decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal of a February 28, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal and denying his request for a continuance. In re Wilson F. Sotamba, No. A 208 484 626 (BIA Dec. 6, 2017), aff’g No. A 208 484 626 (Immig. Ct. Hartford Feb. 28, 2017). 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 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 denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. See Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193, 199 (2d Cir. 2006). An IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, and is “accorded wide latitude in calendar management,” Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551 (2d Cir. 2006). The denial of a continuance is an abuse of discretion, however, if the IJ’s “decision rests on an error of law (such as 2 application of the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual finding[,] or . . . cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Id. at 551-52 (internal quotation marks omitted). To successfully challenge the denial of a continuance to apply for relief, an “alien ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals