17‐2660‐ag Chance 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 ASUMMARY 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 30th day of October, two thousand nineteen. 4 5 PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH, 6 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 7 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 10 COREY ANTHONY CHANCE, AKA COREY 11 ANTONIO CHANCE, 12 13 Petitioner, 14 15 v. No. 17‐2660‐ag 16 17 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES 18 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 19 20 Respondent. 21 22 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1 FOR PETITIONER: JOSEPH MORAVEC (Nicholas J. 2 Phillips, on the brief), for 3 Prisoners’ Legal Services of 4 New York, Albany, NY. 5 6 FOR RESPONDENT: SCOTT GRANT STEWART (Chad 7 A. Readler, Principal Deputy 8 Assistant Attorney General, 9 Erica B. Miles, Senior 10 Litigation Counsel, W. Daniel 11 Shieh, Trial Attorney, on the 12 brief), for Office of Immigration 13 Litigation, United States 14 Department of Justice, 15 Washington, DC. 16 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of 17 Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 18 DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. 19 Petitioner Corey Anthony Chance, a native and citizen of Jamaica, seeks 20 review of an August 3, 2017 decision of the BIA, which affirmed an October 7, 21 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying Chance’s application for 22 withholding of removal and what he characterizes as his request for a 23 continuance pending adjudication of his U‐visa application. Chance’s petition 24 challenges both conclusions, arguing that: (1) the BIA and the IJ failed to apply 2 1 the correct legal standard to his putative request for a continuance; and (2) the 2 BIA and the IJ erred in denying his application for withholding of removal. We 3 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior 4 proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to deny 5 Chance’s petition for review. 6 1. Continuance 7 The Government argues that Chance’s continuance argument is not 8 properly before us because Chance did not seek a continuance before the agency 9 and therefore failed to exhaust the issue. We agree. Chance’s IJ motion, his 10 BIA briefing, and his BIA notice of appeal all ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals