20-2827 Sultan v. Garland BIA Nelson, IJ A095 952 529 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 30th day of May, two thousand twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNY CHIN, 8 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 9 ALISON J. NATHAN, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 ALI ALI SULTAN, AKA RAHAMAT ALI 14 SULTAN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-2827 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Pankaj Malik, Warshaw Burstein, 25 LLP, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 28 Attorney General; Anthony P. 1 Nicastro, Assistant Director; 2 Linda Y. Cheng, Trial Attorney, 3 Office of Immigration Litigation, 4 United States Department of 5 Justice, Washington, DC. 6 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 7 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 8 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 9 is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. 10 Petitioner Ali Ali Sultan, a native and citizen of 11 Trinidad and Tobago, seeks review of a July 28, 2020 decision 12 of the BIA affirming a June 7, 2018 decision of an Immigration 13 Judge (“IJ”), which denied his application for asylum, 14 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”), as well as an application for 16 cancellation of removal. In re Ali Ali Sultan, No. A 095 952 17 529 (B.I.A. July 28, 2020), aff’g No. A 095 952 529 (Immig. 18 Ct. N.Y.C. June 7, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 19 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 20 We have considered both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for 21 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 22 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Sultan primarily 23 challenges the agency’s denial of his motion for a 24 continuance. We find no abuse of discretion in that ruling 2 1 and conclude that Sultan has not otherwise sufficiently 2 exhausted or argued his claims for relief from removal. 3 I. Motion to Continue 4 “We review the agency’s denial of a continuance for abuse 5 of discretion.” Flores v. Holder, 779 F.3d …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals