Uriel Ventura v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000030961]. [16-1804]

Appeal: 16-1804

Doc: 24

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1804

URIEL ALEJANDRO VENTURA, a/k/a Alejandro Ventura Uriel,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General,
Respondent.

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

Submitted:

February 15, 2017

Decided:

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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Todd J.
Cochran, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1804

Doc: 24

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
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
cancellation

of

removal,

denying

his

motion

for

continuance, and ordering Ventura removed to Mexico.

a

fifth

For the

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).
We disagree.

The Board reversed the immigration judge’s initial

decision granting Ventura cancellation of removal, finding clear
error

in

factors.

the

immigration

judge’s

analysis

of

the

hardship

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
for

reconsideration

judge’s

grant

of

of

its

relief.

order
Thus,

reversing
we

agree

the

with

immigration
the

Attorney

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
2

Appeal: 16-1804

Doc: 24

Filed: 02/27/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

later proffered to support his request for a second hearing,
which

led

to

its

finding

that

this

evidence

would

not

have

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.

Ventura,

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,
508

(4th

Cir.

2006)

(stating

that

“[n]o

property

or

liberty

interest can exist when the relief sought is discretionary”),
abrogated

on

other

grounds

by

Dada v.

Mukasey,

554

U.S.

1

(2008).
Finally,

Ventura’s

petition

for

review

implicates

the

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
discretion.
2007).
was

Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir.

We will uphold the denial of a continuance “unless it

made

without

a

rational
3

explanation,

it

inexplicably

Appeal: 16-1804

Doc: 24

departed

from

impermissible

Filed: 02/27/2017

established
basis,

e.g.,

particular race or group.”
omitted).

Pg: 4 of 4

policies,
invidious

or

it

rested

discrimination

on

against

an
a

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
this case.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

We further

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.

PETITION DENIED

4