19-855-ag Alqudah v. Barr 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 18th day of May, two thousand twenty. 4 5 PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 JOSEPH F. BIANCO, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 HUSSEIN MOHD KHAIR AHMED ALQUDAH, 11 AKA HUSSEIN MOHD KHAIR ALQUDAH, 12 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. No. 19-855-ag 16 17 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 18 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 20 Respondent.* 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------ * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 FOR PETITIONER: Glenn L. Formica, Formica, 2 P.C., New Haven, CT. 3 4 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant 5 Attorney General, Anthony P. 6 Nicastro, Assistant Director, 7 Sabatino F. Leo, Senior 8 Litigation Counsel, for Office 9 of Immigration Litigation, 10 United States Department of 11 Justice, Washington, DC. 12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 13 Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 14 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 15 Petitioner Hussein Mohd Khair Ahmed Alqudah, a native and citizen of 16 Jordan, seeks review of a March 18, 2019 decision of the BIA, which dismissed his 17 appeal of a November 28, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his 18 motion for a continuance. Alqudah argues that the agency erred in denying his 19 motion for a continuance because the IJ failed to credit certain evidence and the 20 BIA applied the wrong legal standards when evaluating the IJ’s decision. We 21 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior 2 1 proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to deny 2 Alqudah’s petition for review. 3 1. The IJ’s Decision 4 “We review an IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance for abuse of discretion.” 5 Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 449, 453 (2d Cir. 2008). Alqudah contends that the IJ 6 failed to “properly credit[] the serious illness of Mr. Alqudah’s wife” when 7 determining whether a continuance was warranted. Petitioner’s Br. 9. But the 8 IJ expressly “acknowledge[d] that [Alqudah’s] wife apparently has some serious 9 medical issues which [Alqudah] assists her ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals