NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-2599 _____________ JEAN ISMAEL BIEN AIME NICOLAS, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A203-156-307) Immigration Judge: Tamar Wilson ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on June 21, 2022 Before: McKEE, ∗ RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 22, 2023) _____________________ OPINION ** ______________________ McKEE, Circuit Judge. ∗ Judge McKee assumed senior status on October 21, 2022. ** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Jean Ismael Bien Aime Nicolas petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the denial of his motion to continue and denying his motion for remand. We will deny the petition for review. 1 I. The IJ granted Nicholas five continuances to allow him to obtain counsel and file a Form I-751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence—a form Nicolas had to file after his divorce to waive the joint petition requirement and to remove the conditional nature of his resident status. At the sixth hearing, Nicolas still had not filed a Form I-751. Nicolas’ counsel informed the IJ that he had attempted to file his petition, but his fee waiver was rejected and the Form I-751 had been returned. After recognizing Nicolas’ lengthy detention and many previous continuances, the IJ denied a further continuance as there were no pending applications for relief. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Nicolas’ last motion for a continuance. The BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasons for denying the continuance, including that there were no pending applications for relief. Additionally, the BIA held that “[i]rrespective of the circumstances surrounding the filing status of the Form I-751,” denial of the continuance was appropriate due to the “unlikelihood” that Nicolas would receive a grant of a waiver petition as a matter of discretion because of his indictment for several serious offenses. 2 1 We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). 2 AR 3. These offenses included “armed robbery inflicting or with the use of force, kidnapping, possession of a weapon for unlawful purposes, unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit, terroristic threats, a non-caregiver endangering the welfare of a child by abuse/neglect/sexual act, and resisting arrest by use or threat of force.” AR 3. 2 The BIA also denied Nicolas’ motion for a remand because Nicolas “would not warrant the grant of a waiver petition as a matter of discretion.” 3 The BIA found that Nicolas’ allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel did not merit a remand because Nicolas could not demonstrate prejudice since he “would not warrant any of the forms of relief he seeks as a matter of discretion.” 4 II. 5 We review a denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. 6 A denial of a continuance “should …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals