Case: 17-15439 Date Filed: 09/06/2018 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-15439 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A209-998-011 SAIFUL ISLAM, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. __________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _________________________ (September 6, 2018) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, NEWSOM and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Saiful Islam petitions for review of an order that affirmed the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Case: 17-15439 Date Filed: 09/06/2018 Page: 2 of 6 Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3). Islam challenges the denial of his fourth motion for a continuance. Islam also challenges the finding of the Board of Immigration Appeals and the immigration judge that he failed to provide credible evidence that he was a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh or that he suffered past persecution or feared future persecution on account of his political opinion. We deny Islam’s petition. We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion, Chacku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1281, 1285 (11th Cir. 2008), under which our “review is limited to determining whether . . . [there has been an exercise of administrative] discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner,” Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009). We review the decision of the Board to determine whether it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Carrizo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 652 F.3d 1326, 1330 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001)). “[F]actual determinations, including credibility determinations, . . . can be reversed only if the evidence compels a reasonable fact finder to find otherwise.” Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228, 1230–31 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When the Board adopts 2 Case: 17-15439 Date Filed: 09/06/2018 Page: 3 of 6 the reasoning of the immigration judge, we also review the decision of the immigration judge. Carrizo, 652 F.3d at 1330. We cannot say that it was arbitrary and capricious to deny Islam’s fourth motion to continue. Islam offered no “good cause,” see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, to justify another delay in his removal proceeding. In February 2017, the immigration judge informed Islam of his right to counsel, gave him a list of organizations that could provide legal assistance, and continued his hearing for more than a month. The immigration judge granted Islam three additional continuances, warned him that the absence of counsel would not delay his removal proceedings, and scheduled Islam’s removal hearing for June 21, 2017. The morning of Islam’s removal hearing, attorney Zubaida Iqbal moved for a continuance on the ground that she had been hired the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals