Islam v. Gonzales, No. 05-2099 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2099 RABIUL ISLAM, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A72-167-546) Submitted: May 10, 2006 Decided: June 29, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cynthia G. Katz, LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA A. GROOMES, P.C., Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rabiul Islam, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), upholding the immigration judge s ruling finding Islam removable and denying his motion for a continuance of his removal hearing pending adjudication of a labor certification filed by his employer on his behalf. On appeal, Islam challenges the continuance ruling. The immigration judge may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown. grant such a motion 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2006). is within the sound Whether to discretion of the immigration judge and is reviewed for abuse of discretion only. Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1998). Having reviewed the administrative record, we conclude that the Board did not err in finding the immigration judge acted within its discretion in denying Islam s motion for continuance. 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 - 2 -

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.