Rahman v. Holder

09-2181-ag Rahman v. Holder BIA Abrams, IJ A 095 956 702 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. 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 23 rd day of November, two thousand nine. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 JON O. NEWMAN, 8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _______________________________________ 12 13 A.B.M. SAIFUR RAHMAN, a.k.a. Abm SAIFUR 14 RAHMAN, a.k.a. SAIFUR Abm RAHMAN 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 09-2181-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 21 Respondent. 22 ______________________________________ 23 24 25 1 FOR PETITIONER: David J. Rodkin, New York, New York. 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 4 General; Blair T. O’Connor, 5 Assistant Director; John B. Holt, 6 Trial Attorney, Office of 7 Immigration Litigation, Civil 8 Division, United States Department 9 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 10 11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 12 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 13 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 14 is DENIED. 15 Petitioner A.B.M. Saifur Rahman, a native and citizen 16 of Bangladesh, seeks review of the May 7, 2009 order of the 17 BIA affirming the October 24, 2007 decision of Immigration 18 Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams pretermitting his application 19 for asylum and denying his application for withholding of 20 removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture 21 (“CAT”). In re A.B.M. Saifur Rahman, No. A 095 956 702 22 (B.I.A. May 7, 2009), aff’g No. A 095 956 702 (Immig. Ct. 23 N.Y. City Oct. 24, 2007). We assume the parties’ 24 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 25 in this case. 26 When the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ and 27 supplements the IJ’s decision, we review the decision of the 28 IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 2 1 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). We review the agency’s 2 factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. 3 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Corovic v. Mukasey, 519 4 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2008). We review de novo questions of 5 law and the application of law to undisputed fact. See 6 Salimatou Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir. 2008). 7 Rahman does not challenge the IJ’s determination that 8 he was ineligible for asylum because he failed to file his 9 application within the prescribed statutory period. See 10 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). In addition, because Rahman does 11 not challenge the agency’s adverse credibility determination 12 in his brief, he has waived any challenge to that 13 determination. See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540, 14 541 n.1, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005) (finding that issues not 15 sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and 16 normally will not be addressed on appeal in the absence of 17 manifest injustice). As either of these grounds is 18 sufficient to sustain the agency’s denial of Rahman’s 19 application for asylum, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii); 8 20 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Wang v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 21 437 F.3d 270, 274 (2d Cir. 2006); Chen v. I.N.S., 344 F.3d 22 272, 276 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam), there is no need to 3 1 address his argument that the IJ erred in concluding that he 2 did not establish a nexus to a protected ground, which, in 3 any event, is foreclosed because he did not present it to 4 the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of 5 Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 122 (2d Cir. 2007). Moreover, Rahman 6 has abandoned any challenge to the IJ’s denial of his 7 applications for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See 8 Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 723 n.6 (2d Cir. 2007) 9 (per curiam). 10 In any event, we find no merit in Rahman’s contention 11 that the IJ improperly denied his motion for a continuance. 12 We review the BIA’s affirmance of an IJ’s decision to deny a 13 motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. See Rajah 14 v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 449, 453 (2d Cir. 2008). As we have 15 noted, IJs have “broad discretion” and “are accorded wide 16 latitude in calendar management.” Morgan v. Gonzales, 445 17 F.3d 549, 551 (2d Cir. 2006). An IJ would abuse his 18 discretion in denying a continuance only “if (1) his 19 decision rests on an error of law (such as application of 20 the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual 21 finding or (2) his decision – though not necessarily the 22 product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous factual 4 1 finding – cannot be located within the range of permissible 2 decisions.” Id. at 551-52 (internal quotation marks and 3 alterations omitted). 4 Here, the IJ found that even if Rahman could obtain the 5 order sheet proving that the case against him in Bangladesh 6 was active, it would not establish his eligibility for 7 relief, as the IJ found that the case was “a criminal matter 8 that can be handled by the government of Bangladesh,” and 9 this finding was not clearly erroneous. In addition, the 10 BIA noted that Rahman did not know what the order sheet 11 would show, and could not articulate how it would be helpful 12 to his claim. The BIA also observed that, 18 months after 13 the IJ’s decision, Rahman had not submitted the order sheet. 14 Based on this reasoning, we cannot say that the agency 15 committed an error of law, made a clearly erroneous factual 16 finding, or departed from the range of permissible 17 decisions, in denying the continuance. Furthermore, because 18 the IJ’s adverse credibility determination remains 19 unchallenged, Rahman fails to establish that he suffered 20 actual prejudice. See Rajah, 544 F.3d at 453. 21 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 22 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any pending motion 5 1 for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. 2 Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is 3 DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate 4 Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 5 6 7 FOR THE COURT: 8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 9 10 11 By:___________________________ 6