14-4386 Galarza-Arias v. Lynch BIA Verillo, IJ A087 760 380

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 TO 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 for the 2 Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day 4 of December, two thousand fifteen. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 GUIDO CALABRESI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 _____________________________________ 12 13 CARLOS JAVIER GALARZA-ARIAS, 14 Petitioner, 15 16 v. 14-4386 17 18 LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondent. 21 _____________________________________ 22 23 FOR PETITIONER: James A. Welcome, Waterbury, 24 Connecticut. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 27 Assistant Attorney General; Nancy 28 Friedman, Senior Litigation Counsel; 29 Sharon M. Clay, Trial Attorney, Office 30 of Immigration Litigation, United 31 States Department of Justice, 32 Washington, D.C. 1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board

2 of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED,

3 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

4 Petitioner Carlos Javier Galarza-Arias, a native and citizen

5 of Ecuador, seeks review of an October 30, 2014, decision of the BIA

6 affirming the June 27, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”),

7 denying his motion for another continuance (he had already received

8 several) and ordering him removed. In re Carlos Javier

9 Galarza-Arias, No. A087 760 380 (B.I.A. Oct. 30, 2014), aff’g No.

10 A087 760 380 (Immig. Hartford Jun. 27, 2013). We assume the parties’

11 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this

12 case.

13 Under the circumstances of this case, we review both the IJ’s

14 and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v.

15 Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008). The IJ’s denial of a

16 request for a continuance is reviewed “under a highly deferential

17 standard of abuse of discretion.” Morgan v. Gonzales,

,

18 551 (2d Cir. 2006). An IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for

19 good cause shown,”

, and “abuse[s] his discretion

20 in denying a continuance if (1) his decision rests on an error of

21 law (such as the application of the wrong legal principle) or a

22 clearly erroneous factual finding or (2) his decision--though not

23 necessarily the product of a legal error or a clearly erroneous

24 factual finding--cannot be located within the range of permissible

2 1 decisions,” Morgan,

(internal quotation marks,

2 brackets, and citation omitted). The IJ did not abuse discretion

3 in denying Galarza-Arias a continuance to appeal the denial of his

4 petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (“SIJS”).

5 The IJ considered the factors set forth in Matter of Hashmi,

6

(B.I.A. 2009), as required. See Flores v.

7 Holder,

(2d Cir. 2015). Further, the agency was

8 permitted to rely solely on the denial of the underlying SIJS petition

9 to decline to continue proceedings because, when the BIA affirmed

10 the IJ’s decision, Galarza-Arias had not appealed the underlying

11 denial, despite having had more than a year to do so. See Pedreros

12 v. Keisler,

(2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).

13 Galarza-Arias’s due process claim fails because, as the BIA

14 noted, he has not demonstrated that he suffered any prejudice. See

15 Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey,

(2d Cir. 2008). He has

16 not appealed the denial of his SIJS petition, which was the purpose

17 of the requested continuance.

18 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.

19 FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

3