20-3184-ag Ki v. Garland 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 20th day of December, two thousand twenty one. PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. YA-CHO KI, Petitioner, 20-3184-ag v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. FOR PETITIONER: Theodore N. Cox, New York, NY. FOR RESPONDENT: Jesse D. Lorenz, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Leslie McKay, Acting Assistant Director, on the brief) for Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dated August 31, 2020, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review be and hereby is DENIED. Petitioner Ya-Cho Ki (“Ki”), a native and citizen of Taiwan, seeks review of the BIA’s August 31, 2020 decision denying his motion to remand and affirming a September 28, 2018 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion for a continuance. In re Ya-Cho Ki, No. A076 559 885 (B.I.A. Aug. 31, 2020), aff’g No. 076 559 885 (Immg. Ct. N.Y. City Sept. 28, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. DISCUSSION We generally review the BIA’s denial of both a motion for a continuance and a motion to remand for an abuse of discretion. Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551 (2d Cir. 2006) (BIA denial of a continuance); Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 421 F.3d 149, 157 (2d Cir. 2005) (BIA denial of a motion to remand). Due process claims are reviewed de novo. Gjerjaj v. Holder, 691 F.3d 288, 292 (2d Cir. 2012). “Parties claiming denial of due process in immigration cases must, in order to prevail, allege some cognizable prejudice fairly attributable to the challenged process.” Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 141, 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, Ki articulates three main arguments, all of which amount to due process challenges. Besides those claims, Ki’s brief does not otherwise challenge the BIA’s denial of his motions for continuance or remand, and he thus waives review of any other claims. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 541 n.1 (2d Cir. 2005) …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals