19-1290 Amides-Galdamez v. Barr BIA Poczter, IJ A205 734 146 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 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 22nd day of April, two thousand twenty. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 8 Chief Judge, 9 DENNY CHIN, 10 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 JOSE AMIDES-GALDAMEZ, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 19-1290 18 NAC 19 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Abdolreza Mazaheri, Esq., Sethi & 25 Mazaheri, LLC, New York, NY. 26 27 FOR RESPONDENT: Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney 28 General; Jessica E. Burns, Senior 1 Litigation Counsel; Edward C. 2 Durant, Trial Attorney, Office of 3 Immigration Litigation, United 4 States Department of Justice, 5 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 DENIED. 10 Petitioner Jose Amides-Galdamez, a native and citizen of 11 El Salvador, seeks review of an April 1, 2019 decision of the 12 BIA affirming an October 12, 2018 decision of an Immigration 13 Judge (“IJ”) ordering removal and denying asylum, withholding 14 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. 15 In re Jose Amides-Galdamez, No. A 205 734 146 (B.I.A. Apr. 1, 16 2019), aff’g No. A 205 734 146 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 12, 17 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 18 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 19 We have reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions “for 20 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 21 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). Amides-Galdamez does 22 not challenge his removability or the denial of asylum and 23 related relief. He asserts only that the agency erred in 24 declining to continue his removal proceedings pending a final 2 1 decision in his bond proceedings or pending resolution of his 2 application for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS”). 3 We review the denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. 4 Flores v. Holder, 779 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir. 2015). The 5 agency abuses its discretion in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals