Faisal Amin v. Jefferson Sessions III

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1788 FAISAL AMIN, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 27, 2018 Decided: March 26, 2018 Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vron John Kapoor, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeffery R. Leist, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lance L. Jolley, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Faisal Amin, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for a good faith marriage waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) (2012) and ordering him removed to Pakistan. For the reasons set forth below, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Amin first argues that the immigration judge abused his discretion in denying his motion for a continuance where he had recently retained new counsel. An immigration judge “may grant a continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2017). We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1998). We “must uphold the [immigration judge]’s denial of a continuance ‘unless it was made without a rational explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies, or it rested on an impermissible basis, e.g., invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.’” Lendo, 493 F.3d at 441 (quoting Onyeme, 146 F.3d at 231). Based on our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the agency’s denial of a continuance in this case. In re Amin, (B.I.A. June 6, 2017). Although Amin argues that the denial of a continuance violated his right to a full and fair hearing, this due process argument fails on the ground that Amin does not explain what evidence counsel would have submitted on his behalf or how counsel’s presentation at the hearing would have been different if the continuance had been granted. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that alien must show prejudice to establish a procedural due 2 process violation and court “may only find prejudice when the rights of an alien have been transgressed in such a way as is likely to impact the results of the proceedings” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). Amin also challenges the agency’s denial of his application for a good faith marriage waiver. To the extend that Amin disputes the weight the agency gave his testimony and supporting evidence or argues that the Board erred in failing to reweigh his evidence, ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals