20-4152 Sylla v. Garland BIA Cassin, IJ A079 106 370 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 21st day of March, two thousand twenty- 5 three. 6 7 PRESENT: 8 JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 9 RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, 10 SARAH A. L. MERRIAM, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 ALHOUSSENY SYLLA, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-4152 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Victor Essien, Esq., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Sabatino F. Leo, 28 Assistant Director; Aaron D. 1 Nelson, Trial Attorney, Office of 2 Immigration Litigation, United 3 States Department of Justice, 4 Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Alhousseny Sylla, a native and citizen of 10 Ivory Coast, seeks review of a November 16, 2020 decision of 11 the BIA affirming a November 28, 2018 decision of an 12 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his motion for a continuance 13 and ordering removal. In re Alhousseny Sylla, No. A079-106- 14 370 (B.I.A. Nov. 16, 2020), aff’g No. A079-106-370 (Immigr. 15 Ct. N.Y.C. Nov. 28, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 16 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 17 We have reviewed both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions “for 18 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 19 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We review the 20 agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and 21 questions of law and constitutional issues de novo. See 22 Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009); Dale 23 v. Barr, 967 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2020). “[T]he 2 1 administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any 2 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 3 contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We review an IJ’s 4 denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. See Sanusi 5 v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193, 199 (2d Cir. 2006). 6 “The [IJ] may grant a motion for continuance …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals