UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-2322 SERGIO MERIDA-SAENZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 28, 2021 Decided: December 15, 2021 Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed in part, denied in part, granted in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Kristen A. Giuffreda, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sergio Merida-Saenz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing Merida-Saenz’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion for a continuance and ordering him removed to Guatemala. Merida-Saenz moved for a continuance in the removal proceedings before the IJ based on his pending application for Special Immigrant Juvenile status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J). Before us, Merida-Saenz pursues four arguments: (1) the denial of a continuance contravened his equal protection rights; (2) the denial of a continuance violated his due process rights; (3) the Board erred by affirming the IJ’s decision to deny a continuance; and (4) the Board erred by failing to remand to the IJ for the administrative closure of his immigration case. For the reasons explained below, we dismiss the petition for review in part, deny it in part, and grant it in part, and we remand to the Board for further proceedings. Merida-Saenz first contends that the denial of his continuance motion contravened his equal protection rights. However, because Merida-Saenz did not present this contention to the Board, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Kporlor v. Holder, 597 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 2010). We therefore dismiss the petition for review as to Merida-Saenz’s equal protection argument. Merida-Saenz next argues that the denial of his continuance motion violated his due process rights. To succeed on his due process claim, Merida-Saenz must make two showings: “(1) that a defect in the proceeding rendered it fundamentally unfair, and (2) that the defect prejudiced the outcome of the case.” Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th 2 Cir. 2008). Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that Merida-Saenz has made neither showing. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to Merida-Saenz’s due process argument. Merida-Saenz also maintains that the Board erred by affirming the IJ’s denial of his continuance motion. An IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2021). We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. Gonzalez v. Garland, __ F.4th __, __, No. 20-1924, 2021 WL 4888394, at *10 (4th Cir. Oct. 20, 2021). We will sustain …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals