17-3815 Roblero Gonzalez v. Whitaker 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. 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 6th day of February, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges. URIAS OLIVER ROBLERO GONZALEZ, Petitioner, 17-3815 v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Syracuse, NY. 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Margot P. Kniffin, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S Department of Justice, Civil Division (Jessica A Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief) for Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C. Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Urias Oliver Roblero Gonzalez (“Roblero Gonzalez”), a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an October 23, 2017 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a February 28, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Roblero Gonzalez’s motion to recuse and motion for a continuance.1 In re Urias Oliver Roblero Gonzalez, No. A205 974 849 (B.I.A. Oct. 23, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We review an IJ’s denial of a continuance “under a highly deferential standard of abuse of discretion.” Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551 (2d Cir. 2006). We will, however, find an IJ to have abused his discretion in denying a continuance if “(1) his decision rests on an error of law (such as application of the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual finding or (2) his decision— though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding—cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Id. at 551-52 (internal citations and brackets omitted). We review the decision to grant or deny motions for recusal for abuse of discretion. LoCascio v. United States, 473 F.3d 493, 495 (2d Cir. 2007). On appeals from the BIA, we review findings of fact under the “substantial evidence” standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). Here, Roblero Gonzalez argues that the IJ should have recused himself because of “his personal ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals