16-3986 Cruz Pomavilla v. Sessions BIA Christensen, IJ A094 226 639 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 11th day of June, two thousand eighteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 8 GUIDO CALABRESI, 9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 JOSE ROLANDO CRUZ POMAVILLA, 14 AKA JOSE CRUZ, AKA JOSE O CRUZ, 15 AKA JUSTIN CRUZ, AKA JOSE 16 ROLANDO CRUZ, AKA JOSE ROLANDO 17 POMAVILLA, 18 Petitioner, 19 20 v. 16-3986 21 NAC 22 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, 23 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 24 Respondent. 25 _____________________________________ 26 27 FOR PETITIONER: Garth A. Molander, Bohemia, NY. 28 29 1 FOR RESPONDENT: Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 2 Attorney General; Linda S. 3 Wernery, Assistant Director; 4 Brendan T. Moore, Trial Attorney, 5 Office of Immigration Litigation, 6 United States Department of 7 Justice, Washington, DC. 8 9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 12 is DENIED. 13 Petitioner Jose Rolando Cruz Pomavilla, a native and 14 citizen of Ecuador, seeks review of an October 31, 2016, 15 decision of the BIA affirming a March 15, 2016, decision of 16 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Jesse Christensen denying Cruz 17 Pomavilla’s motion for a continuance. In re Jose Rolando 18 Cruz Pomavilla, No. A 094 226 639 (B.I.A. Oct. 31, 2016), 19 aff’g No. A 094 226 639 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Mar. 15, 2016). 20 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 21 and procedural history in this case. 22 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 23 both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions “for the sake of 24 completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 25 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the agency’s denial of a 2 1 continuance for abuse of discretion. Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 2 F.3d 549, 551 (2d Cir. 2006). An IJ “may grant a motion for 3 continuance for good cause shown,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, and we 4 accord IJs “wide latitude in calendar management,” Morgan, 5 445 F.3d at 551. An IJ abuses ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals