Juan Pena-Torres v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A045-923-260. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-1887]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JUAN A. PENA-TORRES, a/k/a Juan Pena-Torres, a/k/a Anthony
Torres-Pena, a/k/a Juan Antonio Torres,
DANA JAMES BOENTE, Acting Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
January 25, 2017
January 31, 2017
Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Director, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Juan A. Pena-Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
judge’s (IJ) decision denying his motion for a continuance and
his application for deferral of removal under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT).
For the reasons set forth below, we deny
the petition for review.
jurisdiction, except as provided in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
convicted of certain enumerated crimes, including an aggravated
Pursuant to this provision, we retain jurisdiction “to
stripping provision, such as whether [Pena-Torres] [i]s an alien
and whether he has been convicted of an aggravated felony.”
Ramtulla v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 202, 203 (4th Cir. 2002).
“constitutional claims or questions of law.”
see Turkson v. Holder, 667 F.3d 523, 526-27 (4th Cir. 2012).
We review the denial of a motion for continuance for abuse
Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir.
2007); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1998).
Pg: 3 of 4
will uphold the 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,
requires that an alien be given “an opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, i.e., [to] receive a
full and fair hearing on [his] claims.”
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d
violation during removal proceedings, an alien must show: “(1)
that a defect in the proceeding rendered it fundamentally unfair
and (2) that the defect prejudiced the outcome of the case.”
Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243, 256 (4th Cir. 2008).
“when the rights of an alien have been transgressed in such a
way as is likely to impact the results of the proceedings.”
We conclude that Pena-Torres failed to show he was denied
due process when he was denied a continuance.
There is no
evidence that, if he were given more time, the results of the
proceedings would have been impacted.
We also conclude that
Pg: 4 of 4
serious crime or that he was ineligible for deferral of removal
under the CAT.
Accordingly, because we find no merit to Pena-Torres’ due
process claims, we deny the petition for review.
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
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?