Alexius Nwanwa v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920090914

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1080

ALEXIUS IKECHUKWU NWANWA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

July 30, 2009

Decided:

September 14, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lori B. Schoenberg, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN R. PERRY, P.C., Encino, California, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Theo Nickerson, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Alexius Ikechukwu Nwanwa, a native of Cameroon and a citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals sustaining in part and dismissing in part his appeal from the immigration judge's order denying a motion for a continuance and his application for cancellation of removal. We deny the petition for review from that part of the

order affirming the immigration judge's denial of the motion for continuance and we dismiss the petition for review from that part of the order affirming the denial of cancellation of

removal. The decision to grant or deny a continuance is within the discretion of the immigration judge, who may grant a

continuance "for good cause shown."

8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2009); The

see Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 483 (4th Cir. 2006).

refusal to grant a continuance is thus subject to review for abuse of discretion. 1998). was Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir.

The denial of a continuance will be upheld "`unless it without from a rational explanation, or it it inexplicably on an a

made

departed

established basis, e.g.,

policies, invidious

rested

impermissible

discrimination

against

particular race or group.'"

Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, Where judge's

441 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting Onyeme, 146 F.3d at 231). the Board adopts and supplements 2 the immigration

decision, "the factual findings and reasoning contained in both decisions are subject to judicial review." F.3d 243, 252 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal Anim v. Mukasey, 535 quotation marks and

citation omitted). Because eligible to Nwanwa his failed status to and show his he was statutorily visa

adjust

employment-based

petition had not been approved and he was warned that the final hearing could be on the merits of his application for

cancellation of removal, we find the immigration judge did not abuse her discretion in finding no good cause for a continuance. * With respect to the denial of the application for

cancellation of removal, we find, after reviewing the record, that Nwanwa's argument that he was entitled to notice of the need for corroboration and an opportunity to present such

corroboration is without merit.

In any event, the Board found

Nwanwa's testimony was not specific or detailed enough to show that his removal would be an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his to family. review the We also find of an we are without for

jurisdiction

denial

application

cancellation of removal on discretionary grounds.

See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006) ("[N]o court shall have jurisdiction We reject Nwanwa's claim that he was statutorily eligible for adjustment of status and we find his due process argument to be without merit.
*

3

to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b," which is the section governing

cancellation of removal.); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) ("It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our jurisdiction to

review a decision of the BIA to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal or the other enumerated forms of

discretionary relief."). Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process. PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

4