Benjamin Yorke-Arthur v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A096-446-985 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999325168].. [13-1965]

Appeal: 13-1965

Doc: 26

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1965

BENJAMIN YORKE-ARTHUR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

March 12, 2014

Decided:

March 28, 2014

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Kelly J. Walls,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1965

Doc: 26

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Yorke-Arthur, a native and citizen of Ghana,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

(“Board”)

judge’s

decision,

8 U.S.C.

§

dismissing
which

his

found

1227(a)(1)(C)(i)

appeal

from

Yorke-Arthur

(2012)

and

the

immigration

removable

denied

his

under

motion

to

terminate proceedings.
Yorke-Arthur argues on appeal that the Board erred in
upholding

the

immigration

terminate

proceedings.

Homeland

Security

He

judge’s

denial

maintains

(“DHS”)

of

that

improperly

his

the

issued

motion

to

Department

of

a

factually

inaccurate Notice to Appear (“NTA”), and that the immigration
judge’s denial of his motion to terminate materially prejudiced
him as he may have qualified for cancellation of removal if
proceedings had been terminated and the DHS had subsequently
issued a new NTA.

Upon review, we uphold the denial of Yorke-

Arthur’s motion to terminate.

We conclude that the NTA was

valid, despite any alleged factual errors or omissions, and that
no abuse of discretion occurred.

See

Urbina v. Holder, __ F.3d

__, 2014 WL 998324, *2-*3 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2014).
Yorke-Arthur also contends that the immigration judge
abused his discretion in denying a continuance, which YorkeArthur had requested in order to consult with the DHS regarding
its prosecutorial discretion in the case.
2

An immigration judge

Appeal: 13-1965

“may

Doc: 26

grant

§ 1003.29

a

Filed: 03/28/2014

continuance

(2013).

We

Pg: 3 of 3

for

review

good
the

cause
denial

continuance for abuse of discretion.

shown.”
of

a

8

motion

C.F.R.
for

a

Lendo v. Gonzales, 493

F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231
(4th

Cir.

1998).

We

“must

uphold

the

[immigration

judge]’s

denial of a continuance ‘unless it was made without a rational
explanation, it inexplicably departed from established policies,
or

it

rested

on

an

impermissible

basis,

e.g.,

discrimination against a particular race or group.’”
F.3d at 441 (quoting Onyeme, 146 F.3d at 231).

invidious
Lendo, 493

Upon review, we

discern no abuse of discretion in the immigration judge’s denial
of a continuance.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

we

deny

argument

adequately

the

petition

because

presented

in

the
the

for
facts

review.

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

3