19-1410 Diarra Gakou v. Barr BIA Montante, IJ A208 910 349 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. 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 29th day of April, two thousand twenty. PRESENT: Guido Calabresi, Richard C. Wesley, Joseph F. Bianco, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ MOHAMED DIARRA GAKOU, AKA MOHAMED DIARRA, AKA BAYAGI BATCHILLY, AKA MOHAMMED DIARRA, AKA CHERNO GAYE, AKA MOHAMAD DIARRA, AKA MUHAMMED DIARRA, Petitioner, v. 19-1410 WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER: ROBERT F. GRAZIANO, ESQ., Buffalo, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: NELLE M. SEYMOUR, Trial Attorney (Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief) for Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Washington, DC. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is GRANTED. Petitioner Mohamed Diarra Gakou, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, seeks review of an April 19, 2019 decision of the BIA affirming a September 17, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion to continue proceedings. In re Diarra Gakou, No. A 208 910 349 (B.I.A. Apr. 19, 2019), aff’g No. A 208 910 349 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Sept. 17, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. We have reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified and supplemented by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). We generally “review the agency’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion,” Flores v. Holder, 779 F.3d 159, 164 (2d Cir. 2015), recognizing that “IJs are accorded wide latitude in calendar management,” Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551 (2d Cir. 2006). Because Diarra Gakou was ordered removed on account of a firearm offense, however, our jurisdiction is limited to constitutional claims and questions of law, which we review de novo. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(C), 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). Diarra Gakou’s argument that the agency abused its discretion by assessing his motion for a continuance 2 under the wrong legal standard raises a question of law over which we retain jurisdiction. See Flores, 779 F.3d at 163 n.1. An IJ has discretionary authority to grant a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals