NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-3372 ____________ NICOLAS MORALES, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________ On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A215-665-203) Immigration Judge: Pallavi S. Shirole ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) December 9, 2021 Before: SHWARTZ, PORTER and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: February 8, 2022) ____________ OPINION * ____________ FISHER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Nicolas Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 1999 without official authorization, seeks review of the denial of his * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. petition for cancellation of removal. 1 He applied for cancellation on the basis that his wife and son, both of whom are U.S. citizens, will suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if he is removed. 2 On appeal, he argues the immigration judge abused her discretion by denying his request for a continuance of the removal proceedings. He also argues this denial deprived him of his due process rights to retain counsel of his choice and to present evidence. Perceiving neither an abuse of discretion by the IJ, nor a violation of Morales’s Fifth Amendment rights, we will deny the petition. Morales first contends the IJ abused her discretion by denying his request for a continuance. Morales requested the continuance at the start of his merits hearing for the purpose of replacing his lawyer, in whom he states he lost confidence over the failure to obtain probative evidence. Where, as here, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirms the IJ on a claim without discussion, we review the IJ’s decision.3 An IJ may “grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.” 4 We review the denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion, and we will reverse only if the denial “is arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.” 5 1 Our jurisdiction over the BIA’s final order arises under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b)(3), 1240.15, 1240.53. 2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). 3 See Mejia Romero v. Att’y Gen., 997 F.3d 145, 147–48 (3d Cir. 2021). “‘Ordinarily, Courts of Appeals review decisions of the [BIA], and not those of an IJ.’ We review the IJ’s opinion only when ‘the BIA has substantially relied on that opinion.’” Id. (citation omitted) (quoting Camara v. Att’y Gen., 580 F.3d 196, 201 (3d Cir.), as amended (2009)). 4 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. 5 Hashmi v. Att’y Gen., 531 F.3d 256, 259 (3d Cir. 2008). 2 Morales contends the denial was arbitrary because the IJ conducted only a cursory inquiry into his reasons for seeking a continuance. Despite Morales’s characterization to the contrary, the IJ did engage with Morales and his attorney about why he was seeking to continue the proceedings, and she considered factors that might justify granting a continuance. 6 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals