Pozotempan-Ahuejote v. Garland

20-1675 Pozotempan-Ahuejote v. Garland BIA Ruehle, IJ A 201 217 310/314 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 A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 23rd day of November, two thousand twenty- 5 two. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 STEVEN J. MENASHI, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JUAN POZOTEMPAN-AHUEJOTE, DAVID 15 POZOTEMPAN-TEPEYAC, 16 Petitioners, 17 18 v. 20-1675 19 NAC 20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 22 Respondent. 23 _____________________________________ 24 25 FOR PETITIONERS: Jose Perez, Esq., Syracuse, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Bernard A. 1 Joseph, Senior Litigation Counsel; 2 Roberta O. Roberts, Trial 3 Attorney, Office of Immigration 4 Litigation, United States 5 Department of Justice, Washington, 6 DC. 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 8 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 9 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 10 is DENIED. 11 Petitioners Juan Pozotempan-Ahuejote and David 12 Pozotempan-Tepeyac, natives and citizens of Mexico, seek 13 review of an April 27, 2020, decision of the BIA affirming a 14 June 15, 2018, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying 15 their motions for a continuance and to amend their prayer for 16 relief to include applications for asylum, withholding of 17 removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 18 (“CAT”). In re Juan Pozotempan-Ahuejote, David Pozotempan- 19 Tepeyac, Nos. A 201 217 310/314 (B.I.A. Apr. 27, 2020), aff’g 20 Nos. A 201 217 310/314 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo June 15, 2018). 21 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 22 and procedural history. 23 We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions. 24 See Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 2 1 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the denial of motions to continue 2 or accept untimely filings for abuse of discretion. See 3 Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); Morgan v. 4 Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551–52 (2d Cir. 2006). An abuse of 5 discretion occurs if the IJ’s “(1) . . . decision rests on an 6 error of law (such as application of the wrong legal 7 principle) or …

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