Uriel Ventura v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [999978231-2]. Originating case number: A089-955-246. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [16-1804]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
URIEL ALEJANDRO VENTURA, a/k/a Alejandro Ventura Uriel,
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
February 15, 2017
February 27, 2017
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Rob Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Todd J.
Cochran, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Uriel Alejandro Ventura, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order
denying his request for a second hearing on his application for
continuance, and ordering Ventura removed to Mexico.
reasons that follow, we deny the petition for review.
Ventura first contends that the immigration judge erred in
refusing to allow Ventura to present new evidence and testimony
at what would have been a second hearing on his application for
cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (2012).
The Board reversed the immigration judge’s initial
decision granting Ventura cancellation of removal, finding clear
Although the Board later vacated the order of removal
to allow Ventura to pursue voluntary departure and any other
relief to which he may be qualified, it denied Ventura’s motion
General that Ventura’s application for cancellation of removal
was fully adjudicated and rejected at the time his proceedings
were remanded to the immigration court.
Nor do we discern any
error with the Board’s consideration of the evidence Ventura
Pg: 3 of 4
later proffered to support his request for a second hearing,
impacted the relevant hardship analysis.
Ventura also complains that, in rejecting his request for a
second individual hearing on his application for cancellation of
removal, the agency violated his right to due process.
however, cannot state a colorable due process claim because he
has no liberty or property interest in cancellation of removal.
See Aparicio-Brito v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 674, 684 (7th Cir. 2016)
(cancellation of removal is “a form of discretionary relief in
which there is no liberty interest at stake” (internal quotation
marks omitted)); see also Dekoladenu v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 500,
interest can exist when the relief sought is discretionary”),
immigration judge’s denial of his motion for a fifth continuance
of his removal proceedings.
An immigration judge “may grant a
continuance for good cause shown.”
8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2016).
We review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of
Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir.
We will uphold the denial of a continuance “unless it
particular race or group.”
Pg: 4 of 4
Id. at 441 (internal quotation marks
Upon review of the record and Ventura’s claims, we
discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of a continuance in
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
deny the Attorney General’s motion to strike the unpublished
Board decisions filed by Ventura in conjunction with his brief.
See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(b).
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.
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?