20-1523 Guerrero Illescas v. Garland BIA Conroy, IJ A089 909 148 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 3rd day of September, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., JOSEPH F. BIANCO, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ FELICIANO EDGAR GUERRERO ILLESCAS, Petitioner, v. 20-1523 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, Youman, Madeo & Fasano, LLP, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; James A. Hurley, Attorney, 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 Feliciano Edgar Guerrero Illescas (“Guerrero”), a citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an April 13, 2020 decision of the BIA denying his motion to remand and affirming an April 30, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his motion for a continuance. In re Feliciano Edgar Guerrero Illescas, No. A 089 909 148 (B.I.A. Apr. 13, 2020), aff’g No. A 089 909 148 (Immigr. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 30, 3018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005); Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We find no abuse of discretion in the IJ’s denial of a continuance or the BIA’s denial of Guerrero’s motion to remand. We review the denial of a continuance for an abuse of discretion. See Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193, 199 (2d Cir. 2006). An IJ abuses his discretion “if (1) his decision rests on an error of law . . . or a clearly erroneous factual finding or (2) his decision—though not necessarily the product of a legal 2 error or a clearly erroneous factual finding—cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551–52 (2d Cir. 2006) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Guerrero argues that the IJ abused his discretion in declining to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals