Roberts v. Sessions

15-3960 Roberts v. Sessions BIA Straus, IJ A038 996 686 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 28th day of September, two thousand seventeen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 PAUL SYLVESTER ROBERTS, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 15-3960 17 NAC 18 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, UNITED 19 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: Cory Forman, Cohen Forman Barone, 24 LLP, New York, N.Y. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 27 Assistant Attorney General; Mary 28 Jane Candaux, Assistant Director; 29 Kurt B. Larson, Senior Litigation 30 Counsel, Office of Immigration 31 Litigation, United States 32 Department of Justice, Washington, 33 D.C. 1 2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 3 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 4 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 5 DENIED. 6 Petitioner Paul Sylvester Roberts, a native and citizen of 7 Jamaica, seeks review of a November 10, 2015, decision of the 8 BIA denying his motion to remand and affirming an October 29, 9 2013, decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his motion 10 for a continuance to pursue post-conviction relief in state 11 court. In re Paul Sylvester Roberts, No. A038 996 686 (B.I.A. 12 Nov. 10, 2015), aff’g A038 996 686 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 13 29, 2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 14 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 15 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed the 16 IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. 17 Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). 18 We review the agency’s denial of a continuance “under a 19 highly deferential standard of abuse of discretion.” Morgan 20 v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 549, 551 (2d Cir. 2006). An IJ “may grant 21 a motion for continuance for good cause shown,” 8 C.F.R. 22 § 1003.29, and only “abuse[s] his discretion in denying a 2 1 continuance if (1) [his] decision rests on an error of law (such 2 as the application of the wrong legal ...

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