Manual Baires v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A094-142-095. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999683933]. [15-1224]

Appeal: 15-1224

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1224

MANUAL BAIRES,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

October 19, 2015

Decided:

October 22, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Seguinot, SEGUINOT & ASSOCIATES, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Lisa M.
Damiano, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1224

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Manuel

Baires,

a

native

and

citizen

of

El

Salvador,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals

dismissing

his

appeal

from

the

immigration

judge’s

decision, which denied Baires’ motion for a continuance, found
him ineligible for adjustment of status and a § 212(h) ∗ waiver of
inadmissibility, and ordered him removed to El Salvador.
On appeal, Baires challenges the denial of his motion for a
continuance.

An

immigration

judge

continuance for good cause shown.”

“may

grant

a

motion

for

8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2015).

We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of
discretion.

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

Lendo, 493 F.3d at 441 (quoting
Upon review, we discern no abuse of

discretion in the immigration judge’s denial of a continuance.

∗

Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2012).

2

Appeal: 15-1224

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

3