Richard Takyi v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A096-514-505. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998447234] [10-1050]

Download PDF
Richard Takyi v. Eric Holder, Jr. Doc. 0 Case: 10-1050 Document: 31 Date Filed: 10/18/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1050 RICHARD EKOW TAKYI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 7, 2010 Decided: October 18, 2010 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexandru I. Craciunescu, Steffanie J. Lewis, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW FIRM, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Stefanie Notarino Hennes, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-1050 Document: 31 Date Filed: 10/18/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Richard Ekow Takyi, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions ("Board") for order review of the his Board of Immigration from the Appeals' dismissing appeal immigration judge's order denying his request for a third continuance of his removal proceedings and granting voluntary departure with an alternate order of removal. For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition for review in part and dismiss in part. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1003.29 (2010), the immigration judge may grant a continuance refusal to for good a cause shown. is The thus immigration judge's grant continuance subject to review for abuse of discretion. 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007). Lendo v. Gonzales, When deciding a motion to continue for the purpose of allowing for a visa petition to be adjudicated by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the immigration judge's discretion should be favorably exercised if the alien establishes a prima facie approvable visa petition. 2009). See In re Hashmi, 24 I. & N. Dec. 785, 790 (B.I.A. However, the immigration judge is not obligated "to grant a continuance in every case where there is a pending visa petition." Id. In determining whether to grant a continuance, the immigration judge should consider various factors including, among others, whether other visa petitions have been previously 2 Case: 10-1050 Document: 31 Date Filed: 10/18/2010 Page: 3 denied, the reasons for the continuance, and any other relevant procedural factors. Id. at 790-94. We conclude the immigration judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Takyi's request for a third continuance of his removal proceedings. being granted See by id. the at 794 ("[A] history for of the continuances Immigration Judge adjudication of a pending I-130, coupled with other relevant factors, case."). may support a decision to move forward with the Accordingly, we deny in part the petition for review. To the extent that Takyi raises issues that were not presented in his administrative appeal to the Board, we lack jurisdiction to consider those unexhausted claims and dismiss in part the petition for review. 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) (2006); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 736 (2009). Finally, in light of the Board's order sua sponte reopening proceedings and remanding this case to the immigration court, which was issued after the instant petition for review was filed, we deny as moot Takyi's request for a remand to the Board. 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 3

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?