MOHAMMED ISLAM V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73833 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 15 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOHAMMED SYEDUL ISLAM, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73833 Agency No. A202-150-604 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Mohammed Syedul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). continuance and review de novo questions of law. Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Islam’s fourth motion for a continuance for failure to show good cause where he had not shown that he was diligent in obtaining counsel, provided no documentary evidence that counsel was obtained, and failed to submit any applications for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (an IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown”); cf. Garcia v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Although it would have been reasonable for the IJ to grant [petitioner] an additional continuance, it was not unreasonable for him not to do so.”). The agency applied the correct legal standard and provided sufficient reasoning in denying the continuance, where it invoked the applicable “good cause” standard, cited pertinent legal authorities, and explained the reasons for its decision. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009) (the agency applies the correct legal standard where it expressly cites and applies relevant case law in rendering its decision); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-73833
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
