18-82 Greiven Valverde-Urena 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 “summary order”). A party citing 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 9th day of April, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROBERT D. SACK, Circuit Judges. LUIS GREIVEN VALVERDE-URENA, Petitioner, 18-82 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.* * The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set out above. 1 FOR PETITIONER: Jose Perez, Syracuse, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Andrew Oliveira, Trial Attorney (Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant Director, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED. Petitioner Luis Greiven Valverde-Urena (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Costa Rica, seeks review of a December 11, 2017, decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of a March 8, 2017 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering his removal and denying his request for a continuance. In re Luis Greiven Valverde-Urena, No. A 205 703 292 (B.I.A. Dec. 11, 2017), aff’g No. A 205 703 292 (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Mar. 8, 2017). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. We review an IJ’s denial of a continuance “under a highly deferential standard of abuse of discretion.” Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551 (2d Cir. 2006). We will, however, find an IJ to have abused his discretion in denying a continuance if “(1) his decision rests on an error of law (such as application of the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual finding or (2) his decision— though not necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual finding—cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” Id. at 551-52 (internal citations and brackets omitted). On appeals from the BIA, we review findings of fact under the “substantial evidence” standard. Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). An IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. According to BIA precedent, to successfully challenge ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals