Islam v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
RABIUL ISLAM, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-167-546)
May 10, 2006
June 29, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cynthia G. Katz, LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA A. GROOMES, P.C., Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Rabiul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), upholding the immigration judge's ruling finding Islam removable and denying his motion for a continuance of his removal hearing pending adjudication of a labor certification filed by his employer on his behalf. continuance ruling. "The immigration judge may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown." grant such a motion 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2006). "is within the sound Whether to of the On appeal, Islam challenges the
immigration judge and is reviewed for abuse of discretion only." Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1998). Having reviewed
the administrative record, we conclude that the Board did not err in finding the immigration judge acted within its discretion in denying Islam's motion for continuance. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?