Summary
The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of a continuance in removal proceedings and a motion to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish good cause for the continuance or demonstrate prejudice from his prior counsel's performance. A concurring opinion argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the continuance denial under statutory provisions restricting judicial review of discretionary relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in denying a continuance of removal proceedings.
- Whether the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel warranting remand.
Holdings
- The agency did not abuse its discretion; the denial of the continuance is affirmed.
- The agency did not err; the ineffective‑assistance claim fails because petitioner did not show counsel’s incompetence or prejudice.
Key quotations
“We reject both arguments. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance because Petitioner failed to establish that a qualifying family member would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).” (beginning)
Factual background
Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States illegally in 2002, was repeatedly arrested, and was placed in removal proceedings in 2018. He sought multiple continuances to prepare his cancellation of removal application, arguing that his newborn child would suffer exceptional hardship if he were removed. The immigration judge denied a fourth continuance, finding no good cause, and ordered removal. The BIA affirmed.
Procedural history
IJ denied continuance and ordered removal; BIA affirmed. Petitioner appealed to BIA seeking remand on ineffective assistance claim; BIA denied and affirmed IJ. Petitioner filed petition for review in this Court.