Pazir v. Gonzales

Filing 920070315


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1780 MOHAMMAD PAZIR, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A70-889-064) Submitted: February 28, 2007 Decided: March 15, 2007 Before KING, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pablo Santiago, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF PABLO SANTIAGO, JR., Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, William C. Minick, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mohammad Pazir, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) finding that he is ineligible for relief from removal. Pazir contends that the IJ erred in finding that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at the February 5, 2004 hearing. We have reviewed the record and conclude that this contention is without merit. Cir. 1986). government See Delgado-Corea v. INS, 804 F.2d 261, 263 (4th Next, we reject Pazir's claims that the IJ and counsel behaved inappropriately and unfairly, or violated his right to due process, at the February 5, 2004 hearing. See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320 (4th Cir. 2002). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the IJ's denial of a continuance from the March 1, 2004 hearing. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.29 (2006). We accordingly 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. PETITION DENIED - 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?