Rajah v. Holder

09-5146-ag
Rajah v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL .

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 4 th day of January, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 ROBERT D. SACK,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
13 MOHAMED RAJAH,
14
15 Petitioner,
16
17 -v.- 09-5146-ag
18
19 ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General of
20 the United States,
21
22 Respondent.
23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
24
25 FOR PETITIONER: Kai W. De Graaf
26 Law Offices of Kai W. De Graaf
27 64 Fulton St.
28 New York, NY 10038

1
 1
2 FOR RESPONDENT: R. Alexander Goring
3 (Tony West and Michelle G. Latour, on
4 brief)
5 Office of Immigration Litigation
6 Civil Division
7 U.S. Department of Justice
8 P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station
9 Washington, DC 20044
10
11
12 Petition for review of a final order of the Board of
13 Immigration Appeals denying Petitioner’s motion for a
14 continuance of his removal proceedings and affirming an
15 Immigration Judge’s order of removal.
16
17 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
18 AND DECREED that the petition is DISMISSED.
19
20 The Petitioner, Mohamed Rajah, petitions this Court to
21 review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision
22 denying his motion for a continuance in his removal
23 proceedings due to a pending labor certification application
24 (which, if granted, would entitle him to apply for a change
25 of status to legal permanent resident). We assume the
26 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
27 procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
28
29 This Court has jurisdiction to review decisions by the
30 BIA to grant or deny continuances. Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445
31 F.3d 193, 198-99 (2d. Cir. 2006) (per curiam). We review
32 the BIA’s decision to deny a continuance for abuse of
33 discretion. Id. at 199.
34
35 The basis of Rajah’s motion for a continuance has been
36 his pending labor certification application. Between our
37 prior decision in this case (remanding to the BIA for
38 reconsideration of his motion), Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d
39 449 (2d Cir. 2008), and the BIA’s reconsideration of Rajah’s
40 motion, Rajah’s labor certification application was
41 approved. However, his resulting labor certification then
42 expired. As a result, Rajah no longer has a labor
43 certification application pending before the Department of
44 Labor. Therefore, his petition is moot, and we must dismiss
45 it. See Kamagate v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 144, 150 (2d Cir.
46 2004) (“A case becomes moot, if, at any stage of the

2
 1 proceeding, it fails to satisfy the case-or-controversy
2 requirement of Article III....”).
3
4 We hereby DISMISS Rajah’s petition for review of the
5 BIA’s denial of his motion for a continuance and its
6 affirmance of an order of removal.
7
8
9 FOR THE COURT:
10 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
11
12

3