UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2302
NANA OWUSU, a/k/a Nana Kwaku Owusu, a/k/a Nana Kweku Owusu,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 11, 2012 Decided: July 10, 2012
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Victor
M. Mercado-Santana, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nana Owusu, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s
order finding him removable and denying his motion for a
continuance. We deny the petition for review.
Owusu conceded that he was removable for having
remained in the United States longer than permitted. See 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) (2006). He sought a continuance for the
purpose of pursuing an appeal from the denial of his petition
under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(v)(cc) (2006) seeking adjustment
of status as the battered spouse of a United States citizen.
The immigration judge denied the request for a continuance after
considering Owusu’s prior requests for a continuance, the fact
that he was detained and the likelihood that Owusu’s appeal will
be successful. The Board upheld the immigration judge’s
findings and conclusion.
An immigration judge “may grant a continuance for good
cause shown.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2012). This court reviews
the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of
discretion. Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir.
2007); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1998). The
court “must uphold the [immigration judge]’s denial of a
continuance ‘unless it was made without a rational explanation,
2
it inexplicably departed from established policies, or it rested
on an impermissible basis, e.g., invidious discrimination
against a particular race or group.’” Lendo, 493 F.3d at 441
(quoting Onyeme, 146 F.3d at 231).
We have reviewed the record and conclude there was no
abuse of discretion. * Accordingly, we deny the petition for
review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DENIED
*
It was also alleged that Owusu was removable for having
entered into a fraudulent marriage for the purpose of receiving
an immigration benefit. The immigration judge and the Board
elected not to resolve this allegation in light of the fact that
Owusu was removable for staying longer than permitted. Owusu’s
challenge to this unresolved allegation is not relevant and has
no bearing on our review of the Board’s final order of removal.
3